The VIII PPPR (Pending Peeves Progress Review)

[Don Clugston]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> The time has come once again.
> 
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves
> 
> 
> Three months ago, when 0.148 was current, Bugzilla for D was set up.
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/
> 
> (Though for some reason, the list of DMD versions there starts at 
> 0.145.)  Since then, it has amassed just under 200 bug reports.  And it 
> seems to have woken up a few old bugs, for example
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
> http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66
> 
> So two separate issues of covariance not working with interfaces have 
> been fixed.  Except that there's a case that still fails, namely when 
> there are two return types to override.
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179
> 
> Maybe things will be better when even more old bugs are filed in 
> Bugzilla.  Who knows?
> 
> But the world is still at a loss for why the fix (written nearly a year 
> ago now) for this bug still hasn't been committed:
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64
> 
> 
> An old peeve is that std.date is lacking functions, or rather 
> documentation of them, for constructing and interrogating d_time 
> objects.  Now a few of them are documented, but there are still just as 
> many that aren't.  And there's been a debate over the quirk whereby some 
> parameters are specified as d_time when semantically they're not.  At 
> the moment, DDoc seems to be documenting them all as long anyway....
> 
> 
> The latest effort at translating the Windows API headers seems to have 
> been a success so far.  We've had at least five people working on it - 
> anybody else is more than welcome to join in!
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/3194
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?WindowsAPI
> 
> 
> And an old specification issue is still there, namely the old 
> ill-definedness of how opCmp methods must be defined for AAs and sorting 
> to work.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21572
> 
> I was just wondering if it's time we cleared away some of the done stuff 
> from the pending peeves page.  I've noticed that somebody's taken the 
> liberty to move such stuff to the bottom of each section.  Maybe we 
> could delete the stuff that was marked done before somebody decided to 
> start putting in at which version number it was done.  What do you 
> people think?

I think that bugzilla does an adequate job of recording the done stuff, 
now, so you can safely clear it out. The pending peeves are most useful 
for the things that aren't exactly bugs, such as the ones you've listed 
above.