Which is right?

Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Feb 15 16:02:30 PST 2015


On 2/15/15 3:38 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Actually, that's not quite accurate.:-P   I only did std.algorithm; the
> rest were done by other people. I didn't even do very much as far as the
> makefiles were concerned; I just copy-n-pasted what std.container and
> std.range did. I honestly don't even understand what the makefile lines
> quoted above actually do (beyond a nebulous impression); I just
> copy-n-pasted them for std.algorithm.  You might prefer to find somebody
> else who has a better grasp of makefile subtleties than myself for this
> task.;-)

OK makes total sense, thanks. I'm on hook for it.

Loosely related: we need to raise the review scrutiny so we make sure 
issues like this are detected before they make it into the repository. 
It's inefficient to pull work that makes progress in one dimension but 
sets us back in another, just to require clean up afterwards.

I'm trying to just clean my plate before getting into 
std.experimental.allocator and I got to say it's quite discouraging:

* We have the fastest compiler _and_ language in the world, yet it's 
impossible to unittest one module; unittesting one requires building a 
ton of unrelated stuff, which takes a long time.

* Documentation build dependencies are wrongly set up; after changing 
one std module, trying to rebuild dlang.org doesn't "get" it. You need 
to rebuild html in phobos with some arcane command line.

* Don't get me started about the ddox build.

Right now the building and testing rig is quite suboptimal for 
significant phobos work. Worst of all, all of these issues were solved 
earlier. I'll do my part by increasing review scrutiny.


Andrei



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list