Dlist and dip1000 challenge

[rikki cattermole]

On 24/10/2018 11:10 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 8:10 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> So, here is one other thing I want to say. This took me HOURS to find, 
>> and narrow down. Not because I don't understand the concepts behind 
>> dip1000, but because the compiler has fully inserted so many hidden 
>> scopes, I don't know what the actual code it's compiling is. One big 
>> problem I think with dip1000 is simply that it's nearly impossible to 
>> understand where the issues are. Like I said at the end of the post 
>> above, the result of allowing compiler inference of dip1000 is that 
>> your whole program is simply marked unsafe, and you have absolutely no 
>> idea where it is. You can't even guess, because scope just shows up 
>> where you never typed it. Given that you NEED this functionality on 
>> templates, it's going to result, IMO, in people either not using 
>> dip1000, or giving up and adding @trusted: to the top of their file. 
>> This is going to be horrible if we can't find a way to either require 
>> scope instead of inferring it in some cases, or create a way to 
>> diagnose where the blasted problem actually is. Maybe something to say 
>> "I expected this call to be @safe, why isn't it".
> 
> My improvements to DIP1000 are completely dead in the water due to lack 
> of interest. It's impossible to make Phobos DIP1000 compatible if nobody 
> is willing to approve the improvements.
> 
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504

Did the spec get the update that was requested over DIP1000?