Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment?

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 11-04-2012 01:29, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:09:48AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> On 11-04-2012 01:09, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:10:19AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>>> I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I
>>>> can, but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working
>>>> on patches that this could disrupt.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Please do. The current lack of proper function qualifiers has been
>>> bugging me to no end, every time I try to do the same in my own code. I
>>> inevitably have to remove some qualifiers that should be there, just
>>> because of a single druntime construct that wasn't properly qualified.
>>>
>>> And while you're at it, you might want to consider const too. Last I
>>> looked, a whole bunch of stuff that should be const, isn't.
>>>
>>> And best of luck to you... the last time I tried to do the same thing I
>>> ended up changing almost the entire druntime, and still couldn't get the
>>> result to compile.
>>>
>>>
>>> T
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I've made several attempts in the past without much luck...
>> Hopefully I'll get there at some point.
>>
>> So, I won't disrupt your AA hacking by doing this?
> [...]
>
> No, I'm doing the new AA as a completely separate struct for now. I
> won't be touching druntime until the AA code itself is more-or-less
> completed. Once that's done, it should be just a matter of
> copy-n-pasting into object_.d with some minor changes (plus what's
> anticipated to be very painful dmd changes, from what people have been
> telling me :-P).
>
> In fact, if druntime stuff is properly marked, I'll be able to uncomment
> a few more qualifiers in the AA code that currently can't work 'cos of
> druntime's brokenness.
>
>
> T
>

Excellent. I'll get to it then. :)

-- 
- Alex