paolo.invernizzi at gmail.com
Wed Feb 3 09:03:55 UTC 2021
On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 at 20:33:03 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
> On 2/2/21 3:08 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 at 20:03:18 UTC, Steven
>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> Adding @nogc to a method that's overridable that was
>>> previously not @nogc is breakage. That's the point of the
>>> folks in that review.
>> I agree with you, that's why I simply suggested to _add_ a new
>> better method, and pointed also to precedents for that
>> practise in Phobos ...
>> But despite that, the point is NOT having a policy for such
>> common improvements, and that why there was a call to
>> authority ...
> OK, I was misunderstanding what you were saying (I may still
> not understand it),
Sorry for my bad phrasing ... you are understanding it rightly :-P
> but yes, we are trying to find a way to do these kinds of
Steven, it's a two years waiting for a trivial addition to an
obsoleted (definition coming from the PR discussion) module.
This thing start to smell more like "we don't care" that "we are
carefully studying how hight to put the bar"
More information about the Digitalmars-d