On 12/17/16 10:21 PM, pineapple wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 02:40:59 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
D doesn't have either of those pitfalls, so I haven't seen it cause
problems. I'm also a bit skeptical that this will see much use outside
phobos.
This isn't really an argument against it. I just don't see any
argument for it, not that's supported by my own experience.
I would like to echo this sentiment.
I am developing a general-use library for D that is currently resting at
around 50,000 lines.
Is the source code publicly available?
I have never felt a need for a feature like this,
and I can't imagine a reason to begin using it. Dependency management
has just never presented an issue. Very nearly all modules in the
library are fewer than 1,000 lines long and very nearly all symbols are
selectively imported, and the approach has proven to be completely
manageable.
If it can be added without interfering with the existing patterns, I
don't really have an argument against this feature. But I do think that
what this DIP is meant to address is not really a problem experienced by
all or even most who are working with D.
I recall Liran Zvibel repeatedly mentioned this as a big pain point at
Weka.io. I will reach out to him.
On what basis do you extrapolate from personal experience to most or all
who are working with D?
It's a problem being
experienced with Phobos, but there are very valid solutions to that
problem that don't involve an addition to the language - only some
refactoring. I think that makes the argument in favor somewhat weak.
How is Phobos special?
What kind of refactoring do you envision would improve dependency
management and build times?
Thanks,
Andrei
