Is it time for D 3.0?

[rikki cattermole]

On 31/03/2020 12:02 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Monday, 30 March 2020 at 01:14:06 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 3/29/20 9:02 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Good points, but I think that we are currently suffering from a 
>> different problem -- people want to, and do, implement these things, 
>> only to be told no, sorry we want it but we can't use it, because it 
>> breaks things. I listed several things that have been implemented but 
>> were rejected (or merged and reverted). Some of them even by the 
>> creator and BDFL of the language. Some other things are just wholesale 
>> changes to the library that implementing them is just not going to 
>> happen without some significant buy-in from the community and leaders.
>>
>> On top of that, people who may want to implement things are gun shy 
>> after seeing language changes get shot down left and right.
>>
>> Yes, we also still need leadership to approve and agree that X should 
>> be implemented. But right now, even they say X should be implemented, 
>> but we just can't without breaking "everything".
>>
>> What we need is a place for that answer to be yes instead. If not 
>> D3.0, I don't know what is the correct path for such things.
>>
>> -Steve
> 
> Hey, I'm still waiting for leadership feedback for _adding_ and not 
> _changing_ a Phobos method: adding @nogc to socket receive!
> 
> What's the _policy_ in evolving _obsoleted_ modules? One year and an 
> half of ... fog ...
> 
> :-P
> 
> The canary in the mine ... no pun intended!

std.socket is not obsolete.

But in this case receive can be @nogc if the internals allow it to be.

It does not take callbacks, or anything like that.

The only issue surrounding this is if somebody has decided to inherit 
from one of the socket classes. Which is kinda a bad thing to do 
regardless...

So ask point blank if anybody has done it, and it should be fine.