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