Blog Post: Beating std::visit Without Really Trying
paolo.invernizzi at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 12:32:28 UTC 2019
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 10:56:40 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 at 03:10:29 UTC, Walter Bright
>> On 10/7/2019 12:37 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>> - adding another method to a class, marked @nogc, and (maybe)
>>> deprecating the previous method is seen as 'annoying', also
>>> if it's a _clear_ improvement over the actual situation (you
>>> can write _better_ code with that in place compared to the
>>> actual situation, I mean)
>> @nogc doesn't actually enable writing better code. It doesn't
>> change the generated code at all.
>>> I'm on the same boat with you, regarding what you wrote, but
>>> ... I still don't understand the number printed on the bar
>> Atila is in charge of this, and he is because he's shown
>> excellent judgement about these matters over the years.
> I think that I need to ruminate on Phobos v2.
> In the meanwhile, a much easier and shorter route to improving
> the D library ecosystem is to put something up on
> code.dlang.org, which requires no gatekeeping.
While I agree on the ecosystem, the problem of keeping the actual
Phobos modules in a good shape still apply.
Please take a look at the cited pull request: it's a *trivial*
Phobos patch, that can be added aside to the current
implementation, blocked for months waiting for a _political_
I understand that "there's always something else better for the
language to do", but Phobos is the current "home sweet home" for
everyone approaching D, and it's the first library inspected in
It's simply embarrassing to explain to an external reviewer that
a standard library method signature is inaccurate after 88
releases of version 2 of the language. And that yes, 'assumeNoGC'
is needed, 'trust' that, and yes, an issue was filed along with a
I've full faith in your and Walter judgement, of course.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce