On 1/13/12 1:16 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 13/01/12 3:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/13/12 12:08 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
You've said to post bugs, but these don't receive any attention. For
example,
here's two bugs about the lack of documentation on .stringof, one from
2009 and
one from early 2011:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5404
Neither of which have received any comments or clarifications.
I'm sorry about that, but I'm running as fast as I can, along with the
help of a number of prolific contributors. As you can see by the
changelog, there are a zillion issues that do get resolved every month.
One important metric we currently neglect is the date of the oldest bug
or pull request. If we work on improving that with each release, we give
a submitter confidence that their bug will be resolved in reasonable
time. A simple policy like "address the oldest 3 bugzilla entries in
each release" would be very healthy.
Yes, this would be very good, although I suspect we would quickly hit
roadblock bugs, i.e. ones that require a massive amount of work (e.g.
64-bit Windows support) or those that require fundamental changes to the
language and require extra consideration (e.g. const postblit).
I understand. Such issues are not appropriate for bugzilla and should be
best filed as language feature requests and directions to pursue. We
need to make progress in managing the age of the oldest bug.
IMHO, fixing const postblit (and the last mile of const) an immediate
issue, followed by shared and threads. In light of that, working on simd
now appears even more like a waste of time.
Andrei
