To help LDC/GDC

[Walter Bright]

On 4/10/2013 2:28 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 4/10/13 5:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/10/2013 12:43 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> Generally it does not, but is it actually not full of holes in this
>>> case? Can
>>> you give a short wrap-up of what the original language design is for type
>>> checking delegate context pointers? We can only guess, because it is not
>>> specified and much of what DMD does there is obviously buggy. In the
>>> end, we'll
>>> be left with three compiler front ends that implement three distinct
>>> competing
>>> designs.
>>
>> Clearly, delegates should not be able to break purity, const, shared,
>> etc. Any setup that allows that is broken.
>
> Yah, hence the holes :o). I think it's important to acknowledge that problems in
> the language definition exist and problems in the language implementation also
> exist. Both are important, but the former are more so because fixing them makes
> it possible to fix many of the implementation issues.


My point was that competing designs are very probably not necessary. We just 
need to pull on the string on what must be.