[phobos] Time to get ready for the next release

[Robert Jacques]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:45:18 -0400, Steve Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Robert Jacques <sandford at jhu.edu>
>> To: Steve Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com>; Discuss the phobos  
>> library for D <phobos at puremagic.com>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [phobos] Time to get ready for the next release
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:26:51 -0400, Steve Schveighoffer
>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>  Actually, I think you are right.  I wasn't thinking about dmd erroring
>> on a statement that does nothing.  You'd have to assign something to the
>> expression, like:
>>>
>>>  auto x = s.seconds = 5;
>>>
>>>  Which still looks like it does something else, but is much less  
>>> likely to
>> occur.
>>>
>>>
>>>  You wouldn't need the parameter to be immutable, because the parameter
>> is a value, making this a strong-pure function.
>>>
>>>
>>>  But this is still not an argument against strict properties.
>>
>> You were making an argument for strict properties, via actual bug  
>> reports (which
>> I commend you on), and I was making a counter-argument to your argument.
>>
>
> What I meant was, the technicality that the function could be pure, and  
> that would remove the possibility of using it the "wrong way" does not  
> invalidate the property problem.  In fact, it does not necessarily  
> invalidate the example, since it is D1 we are talking about here (Tango).

I don't think in terms of a single property problem (I don't even know  
what you mean by that). I think in terms of many small problems of varying  
severity. (And this solves the vast majority of the high severity issues)  
And any solution to the 'property problem' would be D2/D3 only, so I don't  
know why you're mentioning D1.