Oh Dear

[Walter Bright]

Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> I agree with you that it should be better. I just don't agree with it
>> being a showstopper.
> 
> You know that the D Wikipedia article states: "The official compiler by
> Walter Bright defines the language itself."?

That's often the way many successful languages are. They only get formal 
standards for them written after they become mainstream, not before.


> In other words, every bug in DMD is really a feature of the language. Until
> you fix it. That kind of permanent instability may be part of the reason
> people have been so negative around here lately.

I don't agree with that characterization. Bugs get reported to bugzilla, 
and get fixed in a regular cycle.


>> I invite you to contribute spec corrections to the examples you pointed
>> out.
> 
> I will file those corrections.

Thank you, I look forward to it.


> However, the MulExpression thing was only an
> example. The first one I checked, too. The mentality behind "compiler
> first, specification later" just seems wrong to me. And that's not
> something I can report to bugzilla (or can I).
> 
> By the way, what kind of integer division *does* D use?

To be frank, it is what the x86 DIV instruction does. But I agree that 
the modulus should be defined, regardless of whether that makes it less 
efficient on some machines.