Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Friday, 25 January 2019 at 07:02:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 1/24/2019 4:21 PM, Elie Morisse wrote: I didn't see that coming and I'm deeply frustrated and disappointed by this review and rejection. On the contrary. It is good to find conceptual errors before implementing it. You

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
No, it is not rejected in principle. Finding serious errors in it on the eve of approval is disappointing, and is not auspicious for being in a hurry to approve it. For example, I spent a lot of time working on ARC, and was all set to move forward with it when Timon stepped in and showed it

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 1/24/2019 12:01 PM, kinke wrote: `out` params are default-initialized on entry. Ignoring backwards compatibility for a second, I think getting rid of that would actually be beneficial (most args are probably already default-initialized by the callee in the line above the call...) The

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 1/24/2019 4:21 PM, Elie Morisse wrote: I didn't see that coming and I'm deeply frustrated and disappointed by this review and rejection. On the contrary. It is good to find conceptual errors before implementing it. They're a LOT cheaper to fix earlier rather than when it is in the field.

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Friday, 25 January 2019 at 00:31:50 UTC, 12345swordy wrote: On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 23:43:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: It's no problem if you want to rework the existing text, just submit it as a new DIP. And wait for another 180+ days for a fix? Come on dude, can you understand

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:35 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On 1/24/2019 4:31 PM, 12345swordy wrote: > > And wait for another 180+ days for a fix? Come on dude, can you understand > > the > > frustration being display here? > > Of course it's frustrating. On the other

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:35 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On 1/24/2019 4:31 PM, 12345swordy wrote: > > And wait for another 180+ days for a fix? Come on dude, can you understand > > the > > frustration being display here? > > Of course it's frustrating. On the other

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 1/24/2019 4:31 PM, 12345swordy wrote: And wait for another 180+ days for a fix? Come on dude, can you understand the frustration being display here? Of course it's frustrating. On the other hand, we've had a lot of problems stemming from implementing features without thoroughly

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 23:43:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: It's no problem if you want to rework the existing text, just submit it as a new DIP. And wait for another 180+ days for a fix? Come on dude, can you understand the frustration being display here?

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Elie Morisse via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/rejected/DIP1016.md Here, the DIP Author clearly expresses two reasons why a programmer may choose to declare a function to accept ref arguments. The Language Maintainers see this

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 23:59:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 1/24/2019 1:03 PM, kinke wrote: (bool __gate = false;) , ((A __pfx = a();)) , ((B __pfy = b();)) , __gate = true , f(__pfx, __pfy); There must be an individual gate for each of __pfx and pfy. With the rewrite above, if b()

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 1/24/2019 1:03 PM, kinke wrote: (bool __gate = false;) , ((A __pfx = a();)) , ((B __pfy = b();)) , __gate = true , f(__pfx, __pfy); There must be an individual gate for each of __pfx and pfy. With the rewrite above, if b() throws then _pfx won't be destructed. (All this rigamarole is

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:50 PM Rubn via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 23:18:11 UTC, kinke wrote: > > Proposed `out` semantics: > > --- > > void increment(out long value) { ++value; } > > increment(out value); > > --- > > > > vs. pointer version with current

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:45 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On 1/24/2019 1:31 AM, Manu wrote: > > This process is pretty unsatisfying, because it ships off to a > > black-box committee, who were apparently able to misunderstand the > > substance of the proposal and then

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Rubn via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 23:18:11 UTC, kinke wrote: Proposed `out` semantics: --- void increment(out long value) { ++value; } increment(out value); --- vs. pointer version with current `out` semantics: --- void increment(long* pValue) { ++(*pValue); } increment(); --- The pointer

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 1/24/2019 1:31 AM, Manu wrote: This process is pretty unsatisfying, because it ships off to a black-box committee, who were apparently able to misunderstand the substance of the proposal and then not seek clarification, and despite the only legitimate issue from my perspective being easily

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 22:38:01 UTC, Manu wrote: Shared in/out functions are very rare by contrast to out parameters. The code I write is the exact opposite of your perception - some occasional side-effect-mutations of params, and almost no stuff 'returned' as out params. What are

Re: Top Five World’s Most Underrated Programming Languages

2019-01-24 Thread Ben via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14:44:07 UTC, bachmeier wrote: Of course, one could argue that it must have offered enough to keep some of them interested. They were able to get stuff done when they used it. The build in and good performing http server hit the sweet spot. Never underestimate

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 21:03:29 UTC, kinke wrote: Describing this stuff in detail (rewritten expression?!), isn't trivial and requires knowledge about how calls and construction/destruction of argument expressions works. E.g., the f() call in the code above is lowered to (-vcg-ast):

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:05 PM kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 09:04:41 UTC, Nicholas Wilson > wrote: > > On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: > >> The second problem is the use of := (which the DIP Author > >> defines as

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:05 PM kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 09:49:14 UTC, Manu wrote: > > We discussed and concluded that one mechanism to mitigate this > > issue > > was already readily available, and it's just that 'out' gains a > > much > >

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 21:57:57 UTC, Rubn wrote: it could be an error if the function didn't assign the variable a value instead I don't like that, conditional mutations like this should work too: void conditionalIncrement(bool condition, out long value) { if (condition)

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Rubn via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 20:01:45 UTC, kinke wrote: On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 09:49:14 UTC, Manu wrote: We discussed and concluded that one mechanism to mitigate this issue was already readily available, and it's just that 'out' gains a much greater sense of identity (which is

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Rubn via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 09:24:19 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Walter and Andrei have declined to accept DIP 1016, "ref T accepts r-values", on the grounds that it has two fundamental flaws that would open holes in the

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Dgame via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: fun(10) ==> { T __temp0 = void; fun(__temp0 := 10); } The first problem the Language Maintainers identified with this approach is that the rewrite is from an expression to a statement, rendering it invalid. The expression

Re: hunt-grpc 0.1.1 released! (Google gRPC for D)

2019-01-24 Thread viniarck via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 at 04:19:27 UTC, Brian wrote: Google gRPC is A high performance, open-source universal RPC framework. [...] Cool. Thanks for contributing. I look forward to using it in a future project with microservices.

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 09:04:41 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: The second problem is the use of := (which the DIP Author defines as representing "the initial construction, and not a copy operation as would be expected if

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 20:01:45 UTC, kinke wrote: (most args are probably already default-initialized by the callee in the line above the call...) Should be 'by the callER' of course.

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 09:49:14 UTC, Manu wrote: We discussed and concluded that one mechanism to mitigate this issue was already readily available, and it's just that 'out' gains a much greater sense of identity (which is actually a positive side-effect if you ask me!). You have a

Re: Last Year in D

2019-01-24 Thread Andre Pany via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 13:58:59 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: I said in my annual D Blog retrospective that I wanted to do a similar post focused on D at large. Sebastian Wilzbach sent me a tremendously helpful info dump of all sorts of goings on, most of which I knew nothing about. When I

Re: Top Five World’s Most Underrated Programming Languages

2019-01-24 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 23 January 2019 at 18:42:06 UTC, bauss wrote: Go is garbage and it's only popular because Google is behind it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the language itself. I don't know if I'd agree that it's garbage - it has a lot of appeal to certain types of programmers, though

Last Year in D

2019-01-24 Thread Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce
I said in my annual D Blog retrospective that I wanted to do a similar post focused on D at large. Sebastian Wilzbach sent me a tremendously helpful info dump of all sorts of goings on, most of which I knew nothing about. When I sat down to write the post, it occurred to me that since Adam

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 09:49:14 UTC, Manu wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:25 AM Nicholas Wilson via We discussed and concluded that one mechanism to mitigate this issue was already readily available, and it's just that 'out' gains a much greater sense of identity (which is actually a

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:25 AM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: > > Walter and Andrei have declined to accept DIP 1016, "ref T > > accepts r-values", on the grounds that it has two fundamental > > flaws that

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Walter and Andrei have declined to accept DIP 1016, "ref T accepts r-values", on the grounds that it has two fundamental flaws that would open holes in the language. They are not opposed to the feature in principle and suggested

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Walter and Andrei have declined to accept DIP 1016, "ref T accepts r-values", on the grounds that it has two fundamental flaws that would open holes in the language. They are not opposed to the feature in principle and suggested

Re: DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

2019-01-24 Thread Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 07:18:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Walter and Andrei have declined to accept DIP 1016, "ref T accepts r-values", on the grounds that it has two fundamental flaws that would open holes in the language. They are not opposed to the feature in principle and suggested