On Monday, October 8, 2018 4:27:47 AM MDT RazvanN via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:26:17 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:14:51 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:27:47 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Both the DIP and the implementation still lack a -dip10xx
switch.
After discussing with Walter and Andrei we came to the
conclusion that a flag is not necessary in this case.
Please elaborate on the reasoning.
Immediately after the
On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:14:51 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hi all,
I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major
modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy
constructor calls in all situations where a
On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:26:17 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:14:51 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hi all,
I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major
modifications among otthers are removing
On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hi all,
I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major
modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy
constructor calls in all situations where a copy is made. For
more details, please visit [1] and if
Hi all,
I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major
modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy
constructor calls in all situations where a copy is made. For
more details, please visit [1] and if you have the time, please
offer some feedback,
Thank you,
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018 at 12:33:30 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
After discussing with Walter and Andrei we have decided that we
are going to drop @implicit for now as it may cause bugs (as
Jonathan has highlighted) and consider constructors that have
the form this(ref $q1 S rhs) $q2 as copy
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 6:33:30 AM MDT RazvanN via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> After discussing with Walter and Andrei we have decided that we
> are going to drop @implicit for now as it may cause bugs (as
> Jonathan has highlighted) and consider constructors that have the
> form
On Monday, September 24, 2018 9:33:19 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 16:22, Jonathan M Davis via
>
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> > On Monday, September 24, 2018 3:20:28 PM MDT Manu via
> > Digitalmars-d-announce>
> > wrote:
> > > copy-ctor is good,
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 16:22, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 24, 2018 3:20:28 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
> wrote:
> > copy-ctor is good, @implicit is also good... we want both. Even though
> > copy-ctor is not strictly dependent on
On Monday, September 24, 2018 7:59:36 PM MDT Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 23:22:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > @implicit on copy constructors is outright bad. It would just
> > be a source of bugs. Every time that someone forgets to
On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 23:22:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
@implicit on copy constructors is outright bad. It would just
be a source of bugs. Every time that someone forgets to use it
(which plenty of programmers will forget, just like they forget
to use @safe, pure, nothrow, etc.),
On Monday, September 24, 2018 3:20:28 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> copy-ctor is good, @implicit is also good... we want both. Even though
> copy-ctor is not strictly dependent on @implicit, allowing it will
> satisfy that there's not a breaking change, it it will also
>
On Monday, September 24, 2018 10:44:01 AM MDT Meta via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 01:08:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > @implicit is just there because of the fear of breaking a
> > theoretical piece of code that's going to be extremely rare if
> > it
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 12:40, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 17:34:58 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 00:55, Gary Willoughby via
> > Digitalmars-d-announce
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas
On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 17:34:58 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 00:55, Gary Willoughby via
Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
> It appears that @implicit has been removed from the
> implementation [1], but not
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 00:55, Gary Willoughby via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
> wrote:
> > It appears that @implicit has been removed from the
> > implementation [1], but not yet from the DIP.
> >
> >
On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 01:08:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
@implicit is just there because of the fear of breaking a
theoretical piece of code that's going to be extremely rare if
it exists at all and in most cases would continue to work just
fine even if it did exist.
- Jonathan
On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
It appears that @implicit has been removed from the
implementation [1], but not yet from the DIP.
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/cdd8100
Good, It's not needed.
On Saturday, September 22, 2018 8:40:15 PM MDT Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 01:08:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 22, 2018 6:13:25 PM MDT Adam D. Ruppe
> >
> > via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
>
On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 01:08:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Saturday, September 22, 2018 6:13:25 PM MDT Adam D. Ruppe
via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
Yeah, the problem has to do with how much you have to mark up
your code. Whether you have @foo @bar @baz or foo bar baz
On Saturday, September 22, 2018 6:13:25 PM MDT Adam D. Ruppe via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 17:43:57 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> > If that where the case, then why not make it an actual keyword?
> > A frequent complaint regarding D is that there are too many
>
On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 17:43:57 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
If that where the case, then why not make it an actual keyword?
A frequent complaint regarding D is that there are too many
attributes, this will undoubtedly adding more to it.
When I (and surely others like me) complain that
On Monday, 17 September 2018 at 23:07:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 13:55, 12345swordy via
Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have finished writing the last details of the copy
> constructor DIP[1]
On Monday, 17 September 2018 at 19:10:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 8:27:16 AM MDT Meta via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
Honestly, I don't think that using a pragma instead of an
attribute fixes much, and it goes against the idea of what
pragmas are
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 00:05:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 10:58:39 AM MDT aliak via
Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
This will break compilation of current code that has an
explicit copy constructor, and the fix is simply to add the
attribute
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 00:05:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 10:58:39 AM MDT aliak via
Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
This will break compilation of current code that has an
explicit copy constructor, and the fix is simply to add the
attribute
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 00:05:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 10:58:39 AM MDT aliak via
Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
This will break compilation of current code that has an
explicit copy constructor, and the fix is simply to add the
attribute
On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 10:58:39 AM MDT aliak via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> This will break compilation of current code that has an explicit
> copy constructor, and the fix is simply to add the attribute
> @implicit.
In that case, why not just use a transitional compiler switch? Why
On Monday, 17 September 2018 at 23:32:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 5:07:22 PM MDT Manu via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
Except that @implicit could be introduced for other
constructors without having it on copy constructors, and the
fact that copy
On Monday, 17 September 2018 at 23:14:28 UTC, tide wrote:
From what I've read, the copy constructor can be used with
different types:
struct B
{
}
struct A
{
@implicit this(ref B b)
{
}
}
B foo();
A a;
a = foo(); // ok because of @implicit
a = A(foo()); // ok without @implicit
On Monday, September 17, 2018 5:07:22 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 13:55, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d-announce
>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > I have finished writing the
On Monday, September 17, 2018 5:14:28 PM MDT tide via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Monday, 17 September 2018 at 19:10:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Basically, @implicit is being proposed out of fear that
> > someone, somewhere wrote a constructor that had what would be a
> > copy
On Monday, 17 September 2018 at 19:10:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Basically, @implicit is being proposed out of fear that
someone, somewhere wrote a constructor that had what would be a
copy constructor if D had them instead of postblit constructors
and that that code would break with the
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 13:55, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I have finished writing the last details of the copy
> > constructor DIP[1] and also I have published the first
> >
On Monday, September 17, 2018 2:53:42 PM MDT 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I have finished writing the last details of the copy
> > constructor DIP[1] and also I have published the first
>
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have finished writing the last details of the copy
constructor DIP[1] and also I have published the first
implementation [2]. As I wrongfully made a PR for the DIP queue
in the early stages of the development of
On Monday, 17 September 2018 at 19:10:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
We're talking about introducing an attribute that should be
unnecessary, which will be annoying to use, and which will be
error-prone given the bugs that you'll get if you forget to
mark your copy constructor with it. And
On Monday, September 17, 2018 8:27:16 AM MDT Meta via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I have finished writing the last details of the copy
> > constructor DIP[1] and also I have published the first
> >
On Monday, September 17, 2018 7:30:24 AM MDT rmc via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 16:40:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > Personally, I'd rather that we just risk the code breakage
> > caused by not having an attribute for copy constructors
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have finished writing the last details of the copy
constructor DIP[1] and also I have published the first
implementation [2]. As I wrongfully made a PR for the DIP queue
in the early stages of the development of
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 16:40:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[snip]
Personally, I'd rather that we just risk the code breakage
caused by not having an attribute for copy constructors than
use either @implicit or @copy, since it really only risks
breaking code using constructors
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 5:55:05 PM MDT Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 23:36:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 5:17:44 PM MDT Nicholas Wilson
> >
> > via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> >> it
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 23:55:05 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
The bog-standard way of dealing with avoidable breakage with
DIPs is a -dip-10xx flag. In this case, if set, would prefer to
call copy constructors over blit + postblit.
Also adding @implicit is a backwards incompatible
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 23:36:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 5:17:44 PM MDT Nicholas Wilson
via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
it seems that even if we were to want to have @implicit as an
opposite of C++'s explicit it would _always_ be present on
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 4:11:20 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 04:40, Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce
>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki cattermole
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Here is a question (that I don't think
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 5:17:44 PM MDT Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> it seems that even if we were to want to have @implicit as an
> opposite of C++'s explicit it would _always_ be present on
> copy-constructors which means that @implicit for copy
> constructors
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 22:11:20 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 04:40, Dejan Lekic via
Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki
cattermole wrote:
>
> Here is a question (that I don't think has been asked) why
> not
> @copy?
>
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 04:40, Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki cattermole
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a question (that I don't think has been asked) why not
> > @copy?
> >
> > @copy this(ref Foo other) { }
> >
> > It can be read
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 19:39:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
However, Andrei does not believe that the risk is worth it and
insists that we need a way to differentiate between the new
copy constructors and any existing constructors that happen to
look like them. So, there won't be
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:08:33PM +, RazvanN via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> I have finished writing the last details of the copy constructor
> DIP[1] and also I have published the first implementation [2].
[...]
Here are some comments:
- The DIP should address what @implicit means
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 1:18:11 PM MDT Gary Willoughby via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 16:40:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Ultimately, I expect that if we add any attribute for this,
> > people coming to D are going to think that it's
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 16:40:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Ultimately, I expect that if we add any attribute for this,
people coming to D are going to think that it's downright
weird, but if we're going to have one, if we go with @implicit,
we're future-proofing things a bit, and
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:04:57 AM MDT Elie Morisse via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 11:39:21 UTC, Dejan Lekic
>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki cattermole
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Here is a question (that I don't think
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 11:39:21 UTC, Dejan Lekic
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Here is a question (that I don't think has been asked) why not
@copy?
@copy this(ref Foo other) { }
It can be read as copy constructor, which would be
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 23:56:56 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 9/11/2018 8:08 AM, RazvanN wrote:
[1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129
[2] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688
Thank you, RazvanN!
I very much agree!
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Here is a question (that I don't think has been asked) why not
@copy?
@copy this(ref Foo other) { }
It can be read as copy constructor, which would be excellent
for helping people learn what it is doing (spec lookup).
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have finished writing the last details of the copy
constructor DIP[1] and also I have published the first
implementation [2]. As I wrongfully made a PR for the DIP queue
in the early stages of the development of
On 9/11/2018 8:08 AM, RazvanN wrote:
[1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129
[2] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688
Thank you, RazvanN!
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Here is a question (that I don't think has been asked) why not
@copy?
It's not wrong to call this an implicit constructor since it's
called implicitly. It also means that, if we get implicit
constructors in general, we
On 12/09/2018 3:08 AM, RazvanN wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have finished writing the last details of the copy constructor DIP[1]
and also I have published the first implementation [2]. As I wrongfully
made a PR for the DIP queue in the early stages of the development of
the DIP, I want to
Hello everyone,
I have finished writing the last details of the copy constructor
DIP[1] and also I have published the first implementation [2]. As
I wrongfully made a PR for the DIP queue in the early stages of
the development of the DIP, I want to announce this way that the
DIP is ready for
62 matches
Mail list logo
