[Dlang-internal] 15th Planning (national congress edition)

[Dicebot via Dlang-internal]

>> I'd also like to discuss enhancement for the proposal which would
>> remove the different between ref and pointer handling in lifetime
>> analysis and would allow to merge `return ref` and `return scope` into
>> one entity (at cost of loosing some features that I consider of no
>> practical use). This is not necessary but would be nice to consider
>> before design get set in stone.
> 
> Yes it also seems to me we only need "return scope", "return scope ref",
> and "scope ref". Because "return ref" seems useless if you can escape
> the reference inside of the function.
> Would like to have more than a gut feeling for that argument/decision.

I will look into it after updating existing DIP1000 document to match
implementation.

>> Ongoing problem in new D features is that last 20% of any
>> implementation gets forgotten in process of development and when it
>> released, it heavily lacks polish required to make good impression.
> 
> You might want to try adding a scope card to the backlog that has a
> checklist for all the small stuff, though you'd need to have the
> examples as an attachment, gist, or so.

Sure: https://trello.com/c/JOxCazeF/263-dip1000-scope-implementation

I don't think such approach (packing everything into one board) scales
well but it is not important now so let's use whatever you are
comfortable with.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dlang-internal/attachments/20161117/db261cbe/attachment.sig>