Why isn't dip1000 fully implemented yet?

[Nicholas Wilson]

On Thursday, 22 November 2018 at 11:55:14 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> "impossible to review" is a very strong statement, how then 
> were you able to write the spec?

I guessed, well, I wrote it the way I think what he has done 
ought to work.
Hence why Walter needs to review it.

> I had no issues understanding what Walter meant both comments 
> and the test cases speak for themselves, he also offered to 
> answer any questions.

#8504 is not so bad #8408 on the other hand...

> If there is any corner case which you don't understand, it 
> would imho be more constructive to ask him to add a new test 
> case for it in #8504 so that any ambiguity will be cleared, 
> future regressions prevented and coverage improved. It's very 
> easy to misunderstand a written explanation, but code can only 
> be interpreted one way. This is even more so for an 
> international project where not everyone is a native English 
> speaker.
>
> In my world the spec/doc/changelog is just a release blocker 
> for the next official external compiler release, but by all 
> means merge them simultaneously, now that they both are 
> available.

The second issue at play is that there have been a number of 
undocumented changes to dip1000, and those changes were pulled on 
the understanding that it will be documented. That hasn't 
happened yet, and won't until Walter approves the documentation 
(it won't merge due to some weird LaTeX errors in the doc builder 
but that is beside the point).