DIP74 - where is at?

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

I'm rather in favour of DIP74... what's unprincipled about it? What
would you do instead?

On 11 October 2015 at 10:20, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>> So I have another upcoming opportunity to introduce D in my workplace,
>> this time as a front-end/plugin language to our C++ infrastructure, which is
>> promising since I already have considerable experience in this area (my work
>> at Remedy with Quantum Break), and there is a lot of recent work to interact
>> better with C++, which we will stress-test extensively.
>>
>> You only get so many shots at this; but this is a particularly promising
>> opportunity, since the C++ code is a nightmare, and the contrast against D
>> will allow a lot of coders to see the advantage.
>>
>> There is however one critical missing feature, DIP74... where is it at
>> currently? How is it going? Is it likely to be accepted in the near-term?
>> Some sort of approximate timeline?
>>
>> I think it would be a mistake for me to introduce this without DIP74,
>> since we will rely on it VERY heavily, and the machinery to work-around it
>> will start to look just as heavy-weight as the C++ code I'm trying to
>> deprecate... but then waiting on it starts to look like missing the window
>> of opportunity.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
> It doesn't looks like it is getting implemented. And, to be honest, I'd
> rather go a principle approach + library support rather than a pie of hacks.
>
> The pile of hacks approach is what made C++ C++.
>