Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:56:09 -0500, Jason House wrote: > retard Wrote: > >> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:32:52 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> >> > I think we are now in the position of defining a solid set of >> > concurrency primitives for D. This follows many months of mulling >> > over models and options. >> > >> > It would be great to open the participation to the design as broadly >> > as possible, but I think it's realistic to say we won't be able to >> > get things done on the newsgroup. When we discuss a topic around >> > here, there's plenty of good ideas but also the inevitable bikeshed >> > discussions, explanations being asked, explanations being given, and >> > other sources of noise. We simply don't have the time to deal with >> > all that - the time is short and we only have one shot at this. >> > >> > That's why I'm thinking of creating a mailing list or maybe another >> > group for this. Any ideas on what would be the best approach? I also >> > want to gauge interest from threading experts who'd like to >> > participate. Please advise: (a) whether you would like to participate >> > to the design; (b) keep discussions on the general group; (c) create >> > a separate newsgroup; (d) create a mailing list. The latter would >> > have open enrollment. >> >> Have the discussions here ever led to a conclusion and get implemented? > > DIP2 is a great example of something designed on this newsgroup that got > implemented very recently. It went from newsgroup to bugzilla to DIP to > implementation. T[new] is another one that almost made it.
Ok, good to know. >> You should at least disallow posting via the web interface - those >> broken threads start to annoy some people. > > Do my posts show up as broken threads? I use the web interface almost > exclusively. This one didn't break the thread. But sometimes it does break.
