accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes
uri via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Jan 26 17:45:17 PST 2015
On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 01:32:23 UTC, Mike wrote:
> On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 19:51:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/26/2015 3:39 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd much prefer that we not make this change.
>>
>> It's good to have this discussion.
>>
>> Previously, it's all been advocacy and "break my code" by
>> forcing a change from pure => @pure.
>
> Yes, please! (at least about the "break my code" part)
>
>>
>> Just a few days ago on slashdot, an anonymous D user wrote:
>>
>> "A horrible mix of keywords and annotation syntax for
>> function/method
>> attributes ('const', 'pure', and 'nothrow' are all keywords,
>> but
>> '@property', and '@nogc' are annotations)"
>>
>> for why he won't use D anymore.
>
> Not a deal-breaker for me, but I agree with the sentiment, and
> I think it makes for a more professional language if such
> inconsistencies are addressed.
>
>>
>> Frankly, I think that is a great bikeshedding non-issue that
>> distracts us from what is important.
>
> Yes, there is no correlation between what's important, and what
> people choose to work on, because there is no consensus on
> what's important, and if there is it's usually beyond the
> ability of most contributors, so it doesn't get worked on
> anyway. Personally, I find small changes like this welcome
> because they make for a more polished experience.
>
>> I hope that by doing this PR, we can actually decide that it
>> isn't worth it, i.e. I'd be happy to get consensus and revert
>> it.
>
> A dangerous precedent. I suspect the push-back against this
> change has probably ruined any chance of further polishing the
> language.
>
> From: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388#c27
> ***
>>> I really think that we've passed the point where it's worth
>>> fixing it.
>
> NO!!!! This attitude is the biggest problem D has.
> Please, watch Scott Meyer's talk again. "Most D code is yet to
> be written".
> The future benefits of fixing this kind of crap, are huge.
> ***
>
> In fact, it is the attitude against change that has put me on
> the fence about D, when I was quite an advocate about a year
> ago. It has also made me reluctant to put forth the necessary
> effort to study and make any significant contributions because
> the controversy, as exhibited here, would likely erase my
> entire investment. Instead, I have begun exploring other
> options while keeping one foot on the raft.
>
> I agree that, in general, D should take a more disciplined
> approach to development, but keep in mind that if contributors
> have to go through too much controversy and bureaucracy we're
> not going to see much change (perhaps that's what some want).
>
> I feel for Walter. He's damned if he does and damned if he
> doesn't. Somehow, this herd of cats need to figure out where
> it wants to go, and I need to figure out whether to go all in
> or jump ship.
>
> Mike
+1 to all of this as it mirrors exactly how I feel about D at
this point in time.
I get the impression it will never be finished because too many
are afraid of important breaking changes that seem necessary to
get through the last 5%-10% of D2.
Cheers,
uri
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list