DIP 1024--Shared Atomics--Community Review Round 1

tn no at email.com
Fri Oct 4 12:57:58 UTC 2019

In my opinion, if a DIP is so confusingly written that most 
people don't understand what it is proposing, the review should 
be stopped, the DIP should be rewritten and then a new review 
should be started. Otherwise the review thread just gets full of 
irrelevant comments that are based on misunderstandings, and 
therefore becomes hard to follow.

This is the case for this DIP.

This comment by Walter made it more clear, where the 
inconsistencies originate from:

On Friday, 4 October 2019 at 03:35:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Yes. The trouble stems from the DIP being originally written to 
> apply shared semantics to operators. This was changed to be 
> function only, and some vestiges of the original remain. Hence 
> the confusion.

It is not, however, an excuse not to fix the text before 
restarting the review.


When it comes to the actual content of this DIP, it should 
describe clearly both
1) what the current behavior is before this DIP
2) what the behavior would be after this DIP

(Currently 1 is either not addressed at all, or described very 
implicitly. And 1 is described inconsistently and not very 

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list