Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/15/14, 12:30 AM, Tove wrote: On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 16:49:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the "final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. Andrei Just to try and establish a clear path forwards, if a pull request existed which added support for... final!true final!false would it be accepted? Or would a generic negate-x-DIP be required? const!false noexcept!false etc. I think we'd need an approved DIP. -- Andrei
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 16:49:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the "final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. Andrei Just to try and establish a clear path forwards, if a pull request existed which added support for... final!true final!false ... would it be accepted? Or would a generic negate-x-DIP be required? const!false noexcept!false etc.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/14/2014 5:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: and it becomes a question of whether the familiarity of using virtual instead of !final or final(false) (or whatever we come up with) is worth adding another keyword FWIW, I don't think "virtual" is all that valuable as a user-defined keyword anyway. But, emphasis on "FWIW".
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:00:39 -0700 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On 6/13/14, 10:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > On 6/13/2014 12:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> > >> Being able to negate the "final:" > >> label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that > >> doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo > >> each label. > >> > > > > No it doesn't mean that. "virtual" is very well established > > industry-wide as the anti-final. Just because we accept that does > > not mean we can't still do @~pure, @nothrow(false) or whatever for > > the ones which don't already have well-established names. > > I don't see it necessary to add the "virtual" as a keyword to D. -- If we were going to go with final by default, then adding virtual would make a lot of sense IMHO - especially given that's what people expect from other languages and the fact that virtual would the likely be used far more often than final. Without that however, marking a function as virtual becomes a lot less critical, and it becomes a question of whether the familiarity of using virtual instead of !final or final(false) (or whatever we come up with) is worth adding another keyword and having it in addition to !final or final(false) or whatever (since presumably, we'd still need that for generic code even with virtual). And actually, having virtual would then open the door for !virtual or virtual(false) or whatever in addition to !final or final(false), etc. So, while having virtual would be nice, it's probably complicating things too much from the user's perspective when combined with the ability to explicitly negate attributes. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 18:25:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/12/14, 6:34 AM, Dicebot wrote: It was decided and 100% certain - "virtual" is not going in. Need to remove it from DMD before this release is out. Yes please. -- Andrei Since we didn't seem to have a pull request for removing the attribute: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3663 David
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:52:17 UTC, Kapps wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:29:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the
"final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a
keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to
add one keyword to undo each label.
To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable
solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which
could be nice for metaprogramming.
-Steve
Yes that was the decision, and with the advantage that the
parameter can be computed at compile time.
I honestly don't see this as a noticeable advantage, at least in
the case of final. Not to mention you could just use "static
if(dovirtual) { result ~= "final(false)"; }".
That is a plus for generic code, and that work for virtual.
So there is reason to use something specific for virtual.
Consistency is a plus in its own right. Coming up with ad hoc
solution to every problem is an absolutely terrible way to design
a programming language.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
Steven Schveighoffer:
To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable
solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which
could be nice for metaprogramming.
This is a small problem:
void foo(in int x) {
auto y = x;
y++; // error
}
The current solution is long, requires a cast and is not fully
DRY (the 'x' name is repeated twice):
import std.traits;
void foo(in int x) {
Unqual!(typeof(x)) y = x;
y++;
}
!const is useful here (I assume !const to be the same as
!immutable):
void foo(in int x) {
!const y = x;
y++;
}
Bye,
bearophile
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:29:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the
"final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a
keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to
add one keyword to undo each label.
To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable
solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which
could be nice for metaprogramming.
-Steve
Yes that was the decision, and with the advantage that the
parameter can be computed at compile time.
I honestly don't see this as a noticeable advantage, at least in
the case of final. Not to mention you could just use "static
if(dovirtual) { result ~= "final(false)"; }".
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the "final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which could be nice for metaprogramming. -Steve Yes that was the decision, and with the advantage that the parameter can be computed at compile time.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/13/14, 10:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 6/13/2014 12:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Being able to negate the "final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. No it doesn't mean that. "virtual" is very well established industry-wide as the anti-final. Just because we accept that does not mean we can't still do @~pure, @nothrow(false) or whatever for the ones which don't already have well-established names. I don't see it necessary to add the "virtual" as a keyword to D. -- Andrei
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/13/2014 12:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Being able to negate the "final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. No it doesn't mean that. "virtual" is very well established industry-wide as the anti-final. Just because we accept that does not mean we can't still do @~pure, @nothrow(false) or whatever for the ones which don't already have well-established names.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the "final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which could be nice for metaprogramming. -Steve
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/13/14, 8:49 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote: "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:lndq8q$obh$1...@digitalmars.com... > You did say that something with the same effect as 'virtual' was going > in. No. I am certain either you or Walter did in the last 'final by default' discussion. Walter got annoyed into approving this. It was a mistake. We can't add language features like that. Please no new keyword for what can be done already. It's not proportional response. Are you serious? There absolutely is a need and we've been over this a thousand times. Yes, and I have a good understanding of the points made, no need for a rehash. There is an implied assumption that the arguments are so good, anyone who actually understands them will agree with them. So if someon doesn't agree, it bears repeating them. I understand the arguments and don't agree with them. Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the "final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. Andrei
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 22:25:23 UTC, Kapps wrote:
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 18:25:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 6:34 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:01:24 UTC, Brian Schott
wrote:
Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a
keyword
in D.
See:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584
It was decided and 100% certain - "virtual" is not going in.
Need to
remove it from DMD before this release is out.
Yes please. -- Andrei
That's pretty disappointing. Something similar to virtual is
necessary, and that something should be actually clean,
readable,
and obvious. The proposed final(false), while it is generic, is
long and ugly, a double negative (not not overridable), and not
nicely readable / obvious. Best of all, it's simply another
important thing that continues to never see any progress as it
gets further ignored.
The actual pull to add virtual had multiple pings, but the only
response after being told that it was coming (along with
final-by-default), was that it wouldn't be in 2.065 because that
was a bug fix release. Three months later (after 2.065 came out)
it actually got pulled, but this was only because someone else
pulled it, at which point you expressed your disappointment at
it
being pulled. Then the issue again continued to be ignored for
another 3.5 months after that while the keyword remained in git
master the entire time. There's always talk of making things
actually happen and that the community needing to step up to
make
them happen, yet people *have* stepped up to do all of this and
been continually ignored. Even after being told final-by-default
would not happen, it was (I believe?) said that a way of going
virtual -> final would be added, allowing people to actually use
'final:'. But again, nothing came from that.
We went from agreeing on final by default, to *possibly* getting
an ugly way of going from final: -> virtual, provided that
something is actually done about it instead of it being ignored
further. It's been over a year since the original discussion of
final by default, and agreement that *something* should be done,
but in the past year absolutely nothing has happened related to
it and no signs exist of anything happening in the next year
either.
It's the same with rvalue references ('auto ref' for non
templates). It gets ignored since 3 years or maybe longer and any
community attempt to solve it was rejected - or also ignored.
It's very funny to observe. :D
If it is "only" considered by the community as important, it gets
usually ignored or (multiple) discussed to death.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:lndq8q$obh$1...@digitalmars.com... > You did say that something with the same effect as 'virtual' was going > in. No. I am certain either you or Walter did in the last 'final by default' discussion. Please no new keyword for what can be done already. It's not proportional response. Are you serious? There absolutely is a need and we've been over this a thousand times.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 03:52:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 8:49 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 6/12/2014 11:13 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/12/14, 7:26 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
It
1. allows escaping final, which we can't do without it or an
equivalent
2. does exactly what everybody expects
3. is already implemented
4. looks much nicer than your proposal
Why not just leave it in? I'm already using it, and it makes
extern(C++) classes MUCH more readable (ie DDMD)
Please no new keyword for what can be done already. It's not
proportional response.
AFAIK, escaping final *can't* be done.
It can be worked around. -- Andrei
Yes, it can be done. I am able to do something like this:
class A
{
mixin(Virtual!A);
final:
@Overridable()
void method(this M)(int x) {
writeln("virtual A");
}
}
class B : A
{
mixin(Virtual!B);
final:
@Override() void method(this M)(int x) {
writeln("virtual B");
}
}
class C : B
{
final:
override void method(int x) {
writeln("virtual C");
}
}
void main(string[] args)
{
A a = new A;
a.method(7); //print virtual A
a = new B;
a.method(7);print virtual B
a = new C;
a.method(7); print virtual C
stdin.readln;
}
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/12/14, 8:49 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 6/12/2014 11:13 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/12/14, 7:26 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote: It 1. allows escaping final, which we can't do without it or an equivalent 2. does exactly what everybody expects 3. is already implemented 4. looks much nicer than your proposal Why not just leave it in? I'm already using it, and it makes extern(C++) classes MUCH more readable (ie DDMD) Please no new keyword for what can be done already. It's not proportional response. AFAIK, escaping final *can't* be done. It can be worked around. -- Andrei
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/12/2014 11:13 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/12/14, 7:26 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote: It 1. allows escaping final, which we can't do without it or an equivalent 2. does exactly what everybody expects 3. is already implemented 4. looks much nicer than your proposal Why not just leave it in? I'm already using it, and it makes extern(C++) classes MUCH more readable (ie DDMD) Please no new keyword for what can be done already. It's not proportional response. AFAIK, escaping final *can't* be done.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/12/14, 7:26 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote: "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:lncrb0$31ec$1...@digitalmars.com... > It was decided and 100% certain - "virtual" is not going in. Need to > remove it from DMD before this release is out. Yes please. -- Andrei You did say that something with the same effect as 'virtual' was going in. No. It 1. allows escaping final, which we can't do without it or an equivalent 2. does exactly what everybody expects 3. is already implemented 4. looks much nicer than your proposal Why not just leave it in? I'm already using it, and it makes extern(C++) classes MUCH more readable (ie DDMD) Please no new keyword for what can be done already. It's not proportional response. Andrei
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/12/14, 5:50 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 6/12/2014 8:06 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I don't think it's that important. And definitely there's no ignoring going on. There are plenty of things that are plenty more important, Wait, so now we're rejecting work that isn't at the right priority level? No. I am rejecting work I do not agree with. Some people did seem to find "final:" (and therefore "virtual") important to them, so this really seems to fly in the face of the DConf talk about D development involving people "scratching their own itches". I am sorry, this angle is completely mistaken. Andrei
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:lncrb0$31ec$1...@digitalmars.com... > It was decided and 100% certain - "virtual" is not going in. Need to > remove it from DMD before this release is out. Yes please. -- Andrei You did say that something with the same effect as 'virtual' was going in. It 1. allows escaping final, which we can't do without it or an equivalent 2. does exactly what everybody expects 3. is already implemented 4. looks much nicer than your proposal Why not just leave it in? I'm already using it, and it makes extern(C++) classes MUCH more readable (ie DDMD)
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/12/2014 8:06 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I don't think it's that important. And definitely there's no ignoring going on. There are plenty of things that are plenty more important, Wait, so now we're rejecting work that isn't at the right priority level? Some people did seem to find "final:" (and therefore "virtual") important to them, so this really seems to fly in the face of the DConf talk about D development involving people "scratching their own itches".
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/12/2014 8:06 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: and final/virtual functions can already be done easily. But "final:" can't.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/12/14, 3:25 PM, Kapps wrote: On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 18:25:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/12/14, 6:34 AM, Dicebot wrote: On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:01:24 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a keyword in D. See: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584 It was decided and 100% certain - "virtual" is not going in. Need to remove it from DMD before this release is out. Yes please. -- Andrei That's pretty disappointing. Something similar to virtual is necessary, and that something should be actually clean, readable, and obvious. The proposed final(false), while it is generic, is long and ugly, a double negative (not not overridable), and not nicely readable / obvious. Best of all, it's simply another important thing that continues to never see any progress as it gets further ignored. I don't think it's that important. And definitely there's no ignoring going on. There are plenty of things that are plenty more important, and final/virtual functions can already be done easily. Andrei
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 18:25:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/12/14, 6:34 AM, Dicebot wrote: On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:01:24 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a keyword in D. See: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584 It was decided and 100% certain - "virtual" is not going in. Need to remove it from DMD before this release is out. Yes please. -- Andrei That's pretty disappointing. Something similar to virtual is necessary, and that something should be actually clean, readable, and obvious. The proposed final(false), while it is generic, is long and ugly, a double negative (not not overridable), and not nicely readable / obvious. Best of all, it's simply another important thing that continues to never see any progress as it gets further ignored. The actual pull to add virtual had multiple pings, but the only response after being told that it was coming (along with final-by-default), was that it wouldn't be in 2.065 because that was a bug fix release. Three months later (after 2.065 came out) it actually got pulled, but this was only because someone else pulled it, at which point you expressed your disappointment at it being pulled. Then the issue again continued to be ignored for another 3.5 months after that while the keyword remained in git master the entire time. There's always talk of making things actually happen and that the community needing to step up to make them happen, yet people *have* stepped up to do all of this and been continually ignored. Even after being told final-by-default would not happen, it was (I believe?) said that a way of going virtual -> final would be added, allowing people to actually use 'final:'. But again, nothing came from that. We went from agreeing on final by default, to *possibly* getting an ugly way of going from final: -> virtual, provided that something is actually done about it instead of it being ignored further. It's been over a year since the original discussion of final by default, and agreement that *something* should be done, but in the past year absolutely nothing has happened related to it and no signs exist of anything happening in the next year either.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/12/14, 6:34 AM, Dicebot wrote: On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:01:24 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a keyword in D. See: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584 It was decided and 100% certain - "virtual" is not going in. Need to remove it from DMD before this release is out. Yes please. -- Andrei
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:01:24 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a keyword in D. See: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584 It was decided and 100% certain - "virtual" is not going in. Need to remove it from DMD before this release is out.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 11 June 2014 17:56, Andrew Edwards via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On 6/11/14, 11:24 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: >> >> On 11 June 2014 14:19, Andrew Edwards via Digitalmars-d-announce >> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/11/14, 2:23 AM, deadalnix wrote: I'll be there to test and bug report ! Thank for being the release lieutenant. >>> >>> >>> >>> In my world a lieutenant is absolutely useless. Given the tutelage and >>> guidance of solid staff non-commissioned officer, some day they will >>> become >>> productive members of the community. If they don't find such a mentor >>> however, they will become loose cannons: destroying all in their path. >>> >>> I tend to see life from a different perspective. Officers, in general, >>> are >>> quite useless. They are the "good idea fairies" who give little, if any, >>> consideration to the ramifications of their ideas/proposals and will stop >>> at >>> nothing to see them come to fruition: regardless of consequences. Worse >>> still, they are absolutely incapable of implementing the ideas/proposals >>> they generate. >>> >>> I prefer a "Chief and Indian" analogy. The Chief knows what needs to get >>> done and, though she may not know have the tasks required to get the job >>> done, leverages the strengths of the Indians to do so. The Indians >>> provide >>> the skills and know-how, and actually does the work. >>> >>> This community needs far more Chiefs and Indians (arguably more Indians >>> than >>> Chiefs): and way less lieutenants. >>> >>> Oh, wow! That was a pretty long way around to say thank you for your >>> continued support. >> >> >> >> Nice analogy (and outlook!) >> >> Now, as 'Chief' of GDC talking to 'Chief' or D releases, I must say >> that the release timings are abysmal. At least 2 months overdue. I >> have only just managed to catch up to 2.065, and that's not due out >> till the weekend. >> >> Things used to be so much easier when releases were less than 2 months >> apart. >> > > You are absolutely correct... I was asked to delay the April and, after > that, my personal life took precedence. I am aiming is to get back on track > with a two month release cycle. The maintenance releases will remain on a > six month cycle though. FYI, I have actually collected some stats about DMD vs GDC supported D2 versions and their dates. It's quite interesting, and ends with a guestimation of the 2.067 release date, followed by how long till 2.066 will be merge down into GDC. :-) Maybe this should be posted somewhere, Andrei? http://gdcproject.org/data/gdc-dmd-v2release.svg
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/11/2014 9:19 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote: On 6/11/14, 2:23 AM, deadalnix wrote: I'll be there to test and bug report ! Thank for being the release lieutenant. In my world a lieutenant is absolutely useless. Given the tutelage and guidance of solid staff non-commissioned officer, some day they will become productive members of the community. If they don't find such a mentor however, they will become loose cannons: destroying all in their path. I tend to see life from a different perspective. Officers, in general, are quite useless. They are the "good idea fairies" who give little, if any, consideration to the ramifications of their ideas/proposals and will stop at nothing to see them come to fruition: regardless of consequences. Worse still, they are absolutely incapable of implementing the ideas/proposals they generate. Reminds me of both MBAs and MASH ;)
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/11/14, 11:24 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On 11 June 2014 14:19, Andrew Edwards via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On 6/11/14, 2:23 AM, deadalnix wrote: I'll be there to test and bug report ! Thank for being the release lieutenant. In my world a lieutenant is absolutely useless. Given the tutelage and guidance of solid staff non-commissioned officer, some day they will become productive members of the community. If they don't find such a mentor however, they will become loose cannons: destroying all in their path. I tend to see life from a different perspective. Officers, in general, are quite useless. They are the "good idea fairies" who give little, if any, consideration to the ramifications of their ideas/proposals and will stop at nothing to see them come to fruition: regardless of consequences. Worse still, they are absolutely incapable of implementing the ideas/proposals they generate. I prefer a "Chief and Indian" analogy. The Chief knows what needs to get done and, though she may not know have the tasks required to get the job done, leverages the strengths of the Indians to do so. The Indians provide the skills and know-how, and actually does the work. This community needs far more Chiefs and Indians (arguably more Indians than Chiefs): and way less lieutenants. Oh, wow! That was a pretty long way around to say thank you for your continued support. Nice analogy (and outlook!) Now, as 'Chief' of GDC talking to 'Chief' or D releases, I must say that the release timings are abysmal. At least 2 months overdue. I have only just managed to catch up to 2.065, and that's not due out till the weekend. Things used to be so much easier when releases were less than 2 months apart. You are absolutely correct... I was asked to delay the April and, after that, my personal life took precedence. I am aiming is to get back on track with a two month release cycle. The maintenance releases will remain on a six month cycle though.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 11 June 2014 14:19, Andrew Edwards via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On 6/11/14, 2:23 AM, deadalnix wrote: >> >> I'll be there to test and bug report ! Thank for being the release >> lieutenant. > > > In my world a lieutenant is absolutely useless. Given the tutelage and > guidance of solid staff non-commissioned officer, some day they will become > productive members of the community. If they don't find such a mentor > however, they will become loose cannons: destroying all in their path. > > I tend to see life from a different perspective. Officers, in general, are > quite useless. They are the "good idea fairies" who give little, if any, > consideration to the ramifications of their ideas/proposals and will stop at > nothing to see them come to fruition: regardless of consequences. Worse > still, they are absolutely incapable of implementing the ideas/proposals > they generate. > > I prefer a "Chief and Indian" analogy. The Chief knows what needs to get > done and, though she may not know have the tasks required to get the job > done, leverages the strengths of the Indians to do so. The Indians provide > the skills and know-how, and actually does the work. > > This community needs far more Chiefs and Indians (arguably more Indians than > Chiefs): and way less lieutenants. > > Oh, wow! That was a pretty long way around to say thank you for your > continued support. Nice analogy (and outlook!) Now, as 'Chief' of GDC talking to 'Chief' or D releases, I must say that the release timings are abysmal. At least 2 months overdue. I have only just managed to catch up to 2.065, and that's not due out till the weekend. Things used to be so much easier when releases were less than 2 months apart.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/11/14, 2:23 AM, deadalnix wrote: I'll be there to test and bug report ! Thank for being the release lieutenant. In my world a lieutenant is absolutely useless. Given the tutelage and guidance of solid staff non-commissioned officer, some day they will become productive members of the community. If they don't find such a mentor however, they will become loose cannons: destroying all in their path. I tend to see life from a different perspective. Officers, in general, are quite useless. They are the "good idea fairies" who give little, if any, consideration to the ramifications of their ideas/proposals and will stop at nothing to see them come to fruition: regardless of consequences. Worse still, they are absolutely incapable of implementing the ideas/proposals they generate. I prefer a "Chief and Indian" analogy. The Chief knows what needs to get done and, though she may not know have the tasks required to get the job done, leverages the strengths of the Indians to do so. The Indians provide the skills and know-how, and actually does the work. This community needs far more Chiefs and Indians (arguably more Indians than Chiefs): and way less lieutenants. Oh, wow! That was a pretty long way around to say thank you for your continued support.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 04:17:04 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: On 6/10/14, 10:01 PM, Brian Schott wrote: Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a keyword in D. See: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584 The branch will not be created until 30 June. I trust that this will be sorted out by then. I'll be there to test and bug report ! Thank for being the release lieutenant.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On 6/10/14, 10:01 PM, Brian Schott wrote: Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a keyword in D. See: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584 The branch will not be created until 30 June. I trust that this will be sorted out by then.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a keyword in D. See: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584
