DMD 2.066 Alpha

[Namespace via Digitalmars-d-announce]

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.