On 09/19/2018 04:41 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 08:37:17 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
(Abscissa) wrote:
What's the other issue(s)?
Essentially they boil down to "it is impossible to prove the algorithm
is correct" (for both detecting when the path fix is needed, and fixing
the path).
If you're referring to the inability to deterministically reason about
just what in the h*ll MS's API's actually do, then I agree. But the
problem is, it's equally true of all Win APIs. Only way to fix that is
to omit Win support entirely.
Otherwise, I disagree. I think it is not only provable, but also
unnecessary to prove simply because such proof has never been necessary
for Phobos, and there is nothing inherent to this problem which is
inherently more complicated than anything already existing in Phobos
(you can even omit the questionable modules like std.xml, it all still
holds). Otherwise, present counterexamples demonstrating the inherent
ambiguity/non-provability.
Forcing the path transformation can introduce regressions,
All phobos/compiler changes have the potential for regressions, plus we
have unittests. Unless you can demonstrate how this necessarily goes
above and beyond the risk from any other change in a way that cannot be
sufficiently mitigated by tests, then the concern is irrelevant.
or
make the situation worse on systems where it's not needed.
Provide an example where the situation is made worse.
