DIP30, delegates more destruction for your pleasure

[deadalnix]

On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 05:12:51 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 03:12:21 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> From " UFCS as delegates": example with function foo(ref uint 
>>> a) raises concern about ABI implementation. Currently context 
>>> pointer is passed through RDI and arguments are passed 
>>> differently. There would be a problem with functions like 
>>> foo() which do not know from where to take an argument - are 
>>> they called directly or like a closure?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think ABI should be part of D spec. Or should it ?
>>
>> Anyway, I don't see any reason to have all kind of different 
>> ABI for function call, and this is a good opportunity to unify 
>> everything using the context as a regular, first argument.
>
> ABI, at least partly, is and should be part of the spec. 
> Otherwise it has some of the C++ problems. And the point was 
> not about ABI in a sense of adding piece of information to 
> chapter in dlang.org, but about implementing compiler. I am not 
> enthusiastic about most DIPs presented recently because 1) 
> without Walter and Andrei approval 2) without somebody willing 
> to implement it, DIP turns to be a paper intellect exercise and 
> corresponding ideas defence in the forum.
>

Timon Gehr and I are working on compiler. This isn't intellectual 
masturbation.

As of ABI, it is right now insufficiently defined to have a 
situation different than C++'s.

> The problem is that there is 1 qualifier in current syntax and 
> two underlying objects.

Exactly. And theses are using different (and opposite) rules for 
implicit casts.