We are forking D

[Timon Gehr]

On 1/7/24 21:22, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> So 1027 is equivalently good in this aspect as long as programmers are 
>> conscientious in their definition and use of a typing convention?
> 
> It turns out this is an issue for DIP1036 as well, as db.execi() is the 
> template. I hadn't realized that.
> ...

No, it is not an issue for DIP1036e, because it properly separates out 
compile-time and runtime data.

> 
>> Unless 1036e is believed to be very difficult to implement correctly, 
>> or has nasty cross dependencies that could cause problems later, this 
>> would seem to be a bad trade (hypothetical? simplification of 
>> implementation in exchange for making things harder for users).
> 
> Apparently DIP1027 is no harder for users than DIP1036.

Yes it is. DIP1027 is impossible for users. It's a low bar.