www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Is Bug 5710 likely to get fixed?

reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5710

Is this likely to get fixed or is it more likely to drift along as an
unfixed issue?

I am not discommoded by this, it is a matter of codebase style. 

Thanks.

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jun 05 2014
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:16:06 -0400, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d  
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5710

 Is this likely to get fixed or is it more likely to drift along as an
 unfixed issue?

If Kenji cannot fix it, it doesn't look good for getting fixed... It would be nice, but I agree with the statement that it shouldn't force the creation of a new delegate type. -Steve
Jun 05 2014
parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 06/05/2014 08:42 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:16:06 -0400, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
 <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5710

 Is this likely to get fixed or is it more likely to drift along as an
 unfixed issue?

If Kenji cannot fix it, it doesn't look good for getting fixed... ...

Why?
 It would be nice, but I agree with the statement that it shouldn't force
 the creation of a new delegate type.

 -Steve

There is _absolutely no reason whatsoever_ to think about creation of a new delegate type. The entire argument around performance implications for existing code and creation of new delegate types is completely nonsensical and both David and Martin have already pointed this out.
Jun 05 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:37:14 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote:

 On 06/05/2014 08:42 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:16:06 -0400, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
 <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5710

 Is this likely to get fixed or is it more likely to drift along as an
 unfixed issue?

If Kenji cannot fix it, it doesn't look good for getting fixed... ...

Why?

Because he's a D superstar?
 It would be nice, but I agree with the statement that it shouldn't force
 the creation of a new delegate type.

There is _absolutely no reason whatsoever_ to think about creation of a new delegate type. The entire argument around performance implications for existing code and creation of new delegate types is completely nonsensical and both David and Martin have already pointed this out.

You should speak up on the bug report, at the very least to share your opinion, which many people value. -Steve
Jun 05 2014
prev sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
Hmm, the multicontext array looks complicated, see a simpler 
solution.
Jun 10 2014