DIP30, delegates more destruction for your pleasure

[Maxim Fomin]

On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 05:29:25 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 05:12:51 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
>> 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.

And without significant usage it is a coding exercise or NIH 
syndrome. What is good in the compiler (brand new frontend?) 
relative to gdc/ldc/dmd? Why somebody would switch to it?

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

Yes, and this is a problem. But at least it does exists and 
covers some aspects.

>> 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.

The perhaps should we move DIP in that direction too?