www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Revised DIP Info

reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Now that I've got a few DIP reviews under my belt, I've got a 
good enough handle on the process to lay it out in documentation 
form. To that end [1], I've kept the general structure that 
Dicebot initially set down, changing the details to better 
reflect my view of how it should all work (I still need to update 
the existing DIPs to reflect a couple of changes). I've also 
revised Dicebot's guidelines on DIP writing [2]. Much of his 
original advice is still there. That document is sure to evolve.

Feedback on all of this is welcome.

While I have your attention, Sebastian recently revived an old 
DIP on in-place struct initialization. I invite everyone to come 
and give feedback on that [3], but *please* read the updated 
README before doing so, particularly the section titled 'Review 
Process' so you can fully understand what's expected of reviews 
at this stage of the process (what I now call the 'Draft Review' 
stage). I haven't looked at it yet, but I expect to do so next 
week.

I still need to review the recent updates to Zach Tollen's 
proposal [4] (Improve Contract Usability), and if all checks out 
I'll be merging it as DIP 1009. You can expect the first review 
round shortly thereafter.


[1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/README.md
[2] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/GUIDELINES.md
[3] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/71
[4] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/66
Jun 12
next sibling parent solidstate1991 <laszloszeremi outlook.com> writes:
On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 17:51:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 Now that I've got a few DIP reviews under my belt, I've got a 
 good enough handle on the process to lay it out in 
 documentation form. To that end [1], I've kept the general 
 structure that Dicebot initially set down, changing the details 
 to better reflect my view of how it should all work (I still 
 need to update the existing DIPs to reflect a couple of 
 changes). I've also revised Dicebot's guidelines on DIP writing 
 [2]. Much of his original advice is still there. That document 
 is sure to evolve.

 Feedback on all of this is welcome.

 While I have your attention, Sebastian recently revived an old 
 DIP on in-place struct initialization. I invite everyone to 
 come and give feedback on that [3], but *please* read the 
 updated README before doing so, particularly the section titled 
 'Review Process' so you can fully understand what's expected of 
 reviews at this stage of the process (what I now call the 
 'Draft Review' stage). I haven't looked at it yet, but I expect 
 to do so next week.

 I still need to review the recent updates to Zach Tollen's 
 proposal [4] (Improve Contract Usability), and if all checks 
 out I'll be merging it as DIP 1009. You can expect the first 
 review round shortly thereafter.


 [1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/README.md
 [2] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/GUIDELINES.md
 [3] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/71
 [4] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/66
The guidelines should also contain some advice on check whether there's already a similar idea proposed. I wanted to write my own about how we should fix the DLL issue under Windows, only to find out that DIP45 already exists.
Jun 12
prev sibling parent reply Andre Pany <andre s-e-a-p.de> writes:
On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 17:51:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 Now that I've got a few DIP reviews under my belt, I've got a 
 good enough handle on the process to lay it out in 
 documentation form. To that end [1], I've kept the general 
 structure that Dicebot initially set down, changing the details 
 to better reflect my view of how it should all work (I still 
 need to update the existing DIPs to reflect a couple of 
 changes). I've also revised Dicebot's guidelines on DIP writing 
 [2]. Much of his original advice is still there. That document 
 is sure to evolve.

 Feedback on all of this is welcome.

 While I have your attention, Sebastian recently revived an old 
 DIP on in-place struct initialization. I invite everyone to 
 come and give feedback on that [3], but *please* read the 
 updated README before doing so, particularly the section titled 
 'Review Process' so you can fully understand what's expected of 
 reviews at this stage of the process (what I now call the 
 'Draft Review' stage). I haven't looked at it yet, but I expect 
 to do so next week.

 I still need to review the recent updates to Zach Tollen's 
 proposal [4] (Improve Contract Usability), and if all checks 
 out I'll be merging it as DIP 1009. You can expect the first 
 review round shortly thereafter.


 [1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/README.md
 [2] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/GUIDELINES.md
 [3] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/71
 [4] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/66
Hi, the work on this dip is highly appreciated. For my AWS SDK this DIP would make the coding much more readable and also smaller for several use cases. I generate structures out of the AWS API information. Several UDA information has to be stored. Struct initializer for UDA structures will look great: struct CreateTableInput { FieldInfo({memberName: "TableName"}) TableName tableName; FieldInfo({memberName: "AttributeDefinitions", minLength: 1}) AttributeDefinitions attributeDefinitions; } Second scenario is the actual usage of these structs. Using struct initializer in method signature feels natural: invoker.execute([ new CreateBucketCommand(client, { bucket: "MyBucket1", createBucketConfiguration: { locationConstraint: BucketLocationConstraint.EU_CENTRAL_1 } }), new CreateBucketCommand(client, { bucket: "MyBucket2", createBucketConfiguration: { locationConstraint: BucketLocationConstraint.EU_CENTRAL_1 } }) ]); Kind regards André
Jun 14
parent reply MysticZach <reachzach ggmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 10:32:50 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [3] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/71
Hi, the work on this dip is highly appreciated. For my AWS SDK this DIP would make the coding much more readable and also smaller for several use cases.
At this point in the process, it's better to comment on the github page for that DIP than here on the forums. I'm sure your comments will be welcome there.
Jun 14
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 10:41:01 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
 On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 10:32:50 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [3] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/71
Hi, the work on this dip is highly appreciated. For my AWS SDK this DIP would make the coding much more readable and also smaller for several use cases.
At this point in the process, it's better to comment on the github page for that DIP than here on the forums. I'm sure your comments will be welcome there.
Right. The DIP is in Draft Review right now, which means comments should be left on the pull request. In this thread, I'm specifically looking for feedback on my updates to the readme and the guidelines. Sorry for any confusion.
Jun 14
parent reply MysticZach <reachzach ggmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:17:50 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 In this thread, I'm specifically looking for feedback on my 
 updates to the readme and the guidelines. Sorry for any 
 confusion.
s/GUIDLINES.md/GUIDELINES.md/
Jun 14
parent MysticZach <reachzach ggmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:53:21 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
 On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:17:50 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 In this thread, I'm specifically looking for feedback on my 
 updates to the readme and the guidelines. Sorry for any 
 confusion.
s/GUIDLINES.md/GUIDELINES.md/
In the readme file. The link is good, but the label is wrong.
Jun 14