Editions Ideas

[drug007]

On 13.12.2025 17:41, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 December 2025 at 04:18:08 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Regardless, in the DLF meeting this morning, it was decided that we're 
>> not going to be going forward with DIP 1000 as it stands. Walter 
>> acknowledged that too many folks would consider the explicit 
>> attributes it requires to be unacceptable. Now, he wants to look into 
>> using full program analysis to infer them instead of having an 
>> explicit scope attributes be used for it.
> 
> So, in other words, we are still moving forward with the overall design 
> of DIP 1000, but we are reworking the implementation to be more effective.
> 
> I do not think this is the right course of action. I think DIP 1000 
> should be torn out of the language completely, root and branch. I am 
> happy to write up my thoughts on this at length if anyone is interested 
> in reading them.

I'm interested. I haven't used dip1000, but I have the impression it is 
a controversial feature leading to long-running debate. I don't have my 
own opinion and I would be happy to receive more information in addition 
to the rather poor documentation available.