Editions Ideas

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, December 13, 2025 7:41:52 AM Mountain Standard Time Paul Backus via Digitalmars-d 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.

IMHO, this is a big win, because it means that DIP 1000 as it stands is not
happening. I do have concerns about trying to take DIP 1000 and
automatically infer it with full program analysis, and honestly, I don't
expect that that's going to be a reasonable solution regardless of how well
DIP 1000 models things, because it's going to pose a serious problem with
libraries (since it potentially means that the @safety of the caller depends
on implementation details of the library which the library author made no
promises about), but I think that agreeing to not make DIP 1000 as it stands
be enabled by a default is a big step in the right direction.

I would like to see a better approach with whatever we do going forward, but
if it's as bad as it looks like it's probably going to be, it's not going to
ever make it into the language proper anyway.

> I am happy to write up my thoughts on this at length if
> anyone is interested in reading them.

I suggest that you do.

- Jonathan M Davis