Feedback Thread: DIP 1033--Implicit Conversion of Expressions to Delegates--Community Review Round 1

aliak something at something.com
Wed Apr 22 12:31:47 UTC 2020


On Wednesday, 22 April 2020 at 07:43:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> This is the feedback thread for the first round of Community 
> Review of DIP 1033, "Implicit Conversion of Expressions to 
> Delegates".
>
> ===================================
> **THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION THREAD**
>
> Posts in this thread must adhere to the feedback thread rules 
> outlined in the Reviewer Guidelines (and listed at the bottom 
> of this post).
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md
>
> That document also provides guidelines on contributing feedback 
> to a DIP review. Please read it before posting here. If you 
> would like to discuss this DIP, please do so in the discussion 
> thread:
>
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/ecxdylguqkhtmdomlzhq@forum.dlang.org
>
> ==================================
>
> You can find DIP 1033 here:
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/7b61411cb6cf8db05d9b8e1df5d2d9bae53a5f1e/DIPs/DIP1033.md
>
> The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on May 6, or when I 
> make a post declaring it complete. Feedback posted to this 
> thread after that point may be ignored.
>
> At the end of this review round, the DIP will be moved into the 
> Post-Community Round 1 state. Significant revisions resulting 
> from this review round may cause the DIP manager to require 
> another round of Community Review, otherwise the DIP will be 
> queued for the Final Review.
>
> ==================================
> Posts in this thread that do not adhere to the following rules 
> will be deleted at the DIP author's discretion:
>
> * All posts must be a direct reply to the DIP manager's initial 
> post, with only two exceptions:
>
>     - Any commenter may reply to their own posts to retract 
> feedback contained in the original post
>
>     - The DIP author may (and is encouraged to) reply to any 
> feedback solely to acknowledge the feedback with agreement or 
> disagreement (preferably with supporting reasons in the latter 
> case)
>
> * Feedback must be actionable, i.e., there must be some action 
> the DIP author can choose to take in response to the feedback, 
> such as changing details, adding new information, or even 
> retracting the proposal.
>
> * Feedback related to the merits of the proposal rather than to 
> the contents of the DIP (e.g., "I'm against this DIP.") is 
> allowed in Community Review (not Final Review), but must be 
> backed by supporting arguments (e.g., "I'm against this DIP 
> because..."). The supporting arguments must be reasonable. 
> Obviously frivolous arguments waste everyone's time.
>
> * Feedback should be clear and concise, preferably listed as 
> bullet points (those who take the time to do an in-depth review 
> and provide feedback in the form of answers to the questions in 
> this document will receive much gratitude). Information 
> irrelevant to the DIP or is not provided in service of 
> clarifying the feedback is unwelcome.

The rationale for this entire DIP seems to center around the 
inadequacies of lazy. Some feedback on them:

1. it stands out as an oddity
   Why is it an oddity? Is it an oddity in the sense of point 4? 
Or? Lazy is quite a common concept in a lot of languages and also 
very useful in terms of functionality and documentation of intent.

2. being an oddity means it is hard to reason about, especially 
with the proliferation of parameter attributes
   Being an oddity implies it's hard to reason about?? I'm not 
sure I get this link?

3. it is underdocumented
   Is this really a valid reason to do something? The fix is very 
simple.

5. it is rarely used, so likely has many undetected problems
   Again is this valid? extern(C++) is used less than lazy 
according to searches on github.

6. that it works like a delegate has largely gone unrecognized
   Huh?

It sounds like point 4 is the real reason behind this? And if it 
is, then maybe the difficulties there can be expanded upon?

On breaking changes, the section on overloading shows an example 
on something that would break but the breaking changes section 
says nothing would break:

// Today ok but will be a compiler error after this?
void f(long) {}
void f(long delegate()) {}

void boink()
{
     int i;
     f(i);
}





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list