Is it bad for object.di to depend on core.exception?

[Daniel Murphy]

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message 
news:mailman.176.1331147910.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> Wasn't the latest proposal that we add a working AA implementation to
>> the runtime and switch the compiler after that has settled?
>
> Is somebody working on that? If not, I may take a crack at doing it.
>
> And by runtime you mean object_.d, right? aaA.d is already part of
> druntime, from what I understand. :-)
>
>
> T
>
> -- 
> If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. -- Software disclaimer notice

I was the one that recently tried to get AAs rolled back to the D1 
implemenation (unsuccessfully) but I'm not working on a reimplementation. 
The closed pull requests are sitting on github if you'd like to take a look 
at them.

For it to be 'fixed', AAs need to be able to do all the things they can do 
now, including producing error messages with V[K] instead of 
AssociativeArray!(K, V), magic initialization and the same reference 
semantics.  They also need to _work_ in ctfe, either because the 
implementation is available and ctfeable, or because the calls get 
translated late enough that the interpreter can pick out the 
IndexExps/DotIdExps and treat them specially.

At the moment I'm leaning towards doing the translations in the glue layer, 
and using ufcs for everything else, but whatever works.  There's a thread on 
the internals mailing list that lists some of the issues with the current 
implementation.