www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DConf 2019 AGM Livestream

reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Anyone interested in the AGM can watch it at the following link. 
You can leave feedback there, in IRC, or in Discord.

https://youtu.be/cpTAtiboIDs
May 11
next sibling parent reply Exil <Exil gmall.com> writes:
On Saturday, 11 May 2019 at 07:53:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 Anyone interested in the AGM can watch it at the following 
 link. You can leave feedback there, in IRC, or in Discord.

 https://youtu.be/cpTAtiboIDs
Regarding the discussion of how bool is handled...
 It's a one bit integer so it should behave like a one bit 
 integer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpTAtiboIDs#t=2h17m50s Wouldn't entirely say that, someone already pointed out the ++ operator but it does not behave like an integer in other respects either. It does not overflow the same way an integer does, max + 1 -> 0. A 1-bit integer can only hold two values, 0/1. 1 + 1 should equal 0, but instead it equals 1. It is already a special case. Converting any integer will result in the bool being set to 1, the only time it isn't is when the integer is zero. Not like a 1-bit integer would. writeln( cast(ubyte) (ubyte.max + 1) ); // 0 writeln( cast(ushort)(ushort.max + 1) ); // 0 writeln( cast(uint) (uint.max + 1) ); // 0 writeln( cast(ulong) (ulong.max + 1) ); // 0 writeln( cast(bool) (bool.max + 1) ); // 1 (true)
 Maybe you got too many overloads and what are you trying to do 
 with those overloads that it would matter that it called a 
 different overload
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpTAtiboIDs#t=2h20m42s I've seen it a few times, if you just a simple variant or some sort of generic script type to be used. You don't need "too many overloads" it literally takes 2, the minimum number of overloads for there to be an overload. struct SomeVariantOrScriptTypeGeneric { enum Type { Bool, Long, } Type type; union { bool bool_; long long_; } this( bool ) { type = Type.Bool; } this( long ) { type = Type.Long; } } enum int a = 1; enum int b = 2; SomeVariantOrScriptTypeGeneric v = b - a; // type == Bool Sure it is convenient to have some properties of bool also be similar to an integer, but it can definitely not be swapped in to be used like a 1-bit integer and there are already plenty of special rules for it.
May 11
next sibling parent reply Mike Franklin <slavo5150 yahoo.com> writes:
On Saturday, 11 May 2019 at 20:35:40 UTC, Exil wrote:

 Regarding the discussion of how bool is handled...

 It's a one bit integer so it should behave like a one bit 
 integer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpTAtiboIDs#t=2h17m50s
I think Walter is conflating how bool is stored in memory with its semantics. I'm currently considering using D's rich modeling features to create a new boolean type that behaves more like a boolean and less like a bit. But it's unfortunate and disappointing we have to resort to something like that. Mike
May 11
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 5/11/19 10:27 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
 On Saturday, 11 May 2019 at 20:35:40 UTC, Exil wrote:
 
 Regarding the discussion of how bool is handled...

 It's a one bit integer so it should behave like a one bit integer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpTAtiboIDs#t=2h17m50s
I think Walter is conflating how bool is stored in memory with its semantics.
I find this tends to be an unfortunately *very easy* trap to fall into for programmers highly-experienced in low-level work: the conflation of abstraction vs implementation. This conflation is something they're more accustomed to, more comfortable with, and more tolerant of, than other programmers. The real key here is this: Do we have 'bool' because a 1-bit integer is useful, or do we have 'bool' because a "true vs false" abstraction is useful? The answer to that dictates the correct semantics.
 I'm currently considering using D's rich modeling features 
 to create a new boolean type that behaves more like a boolean and less 
 like a bit.  But it's unfortunate and disappointing we have to resort to 
 something like that.
Please do! Way I figure, it'll either work great and be a fantastic tool to have, or at the very *worst*, if there turns out to be any downsides to using it (vs a well-made built-in bool), then it will still serve to help root out any areas where D can improve its in-library modeling capabilities.
May 11
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/11/2019 7:27 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
 I think Walter is conflating how bool is stored in memory with its 
 semantics.
That's exactly what I'm deliberately doing.
 I'm currently considering using D's rich modeling features 
 to create a new boolean type that behaves more like a boolean and less 
 like a bit.  But it's unfortunate and disappointing we have to resort to 
 something like that.
I understand. Every programmer, sooner or later, decides to step up and take a swing at inventing boolean. (I have too - did you know that D used to have a `bit` builtin type?) The programming landscape is littered with the corpses of one after another. Phobos has multiple ones - RefCountedAutoInitialize .yes and .no, and even a struct Yes and a struct No. std.bitmanip has an enum A{True,False}. std.json has enum E{True=true}. std.typecons has the bizarre enum issue10647_isAlwaysTrue=true;. (One wonders what would happen if it was set to false. Would it cause a rip in the fabric of space-time? I dare not experiment with that!) The C++ Committee currently is fiercely debating adding a "Boolean" construct in one of the longest threads I've ever seen. One of their problems is it conflicts with the endless "Boolean" types added to existing C++ code, along with every variation "Bool", "Bool", "boolean", etc. All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as a satisfactory bool type. Will you succeed where 10,000 other programmers have failed? Seems unlikely. But I doubt I will dissuade you from trying. So what does work reasonably? Treating it like a small integer. We know what the various integer semantics are, and it fits right in with that. I know the operator ++ difference, and it is my fault that I succumbed to a moment of boolean madness and allowed that in. (++ on D bool is saturation arithmetic, unlike the overflow semantics in every other integer type. It is a mistake, please don't use that as justification for adding more quirky behaviors.) On a final note, C++ added a std::vector<bool> special case, which works unlike any other vector type. Years of experience have shown that to have been a mistake, just like all the others, and it is widely derided as a complete failure.
May 11
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 5/12/19 1:43 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/11/2019 7:27 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
 I think Walter is conflating how bool is stored in memory with its 
 semantics.
That's exactly what I'm deliberately doing.
 I'm currently considering using D's rich modeling features to create a 
 new boolean type that behaves more like a boolean and less like a 
 bit.  But it's unfortunate and disappointing we have to resort to 
 something like that.
I understand. Every programmer, sooner or later, decides to step up and take a swing at inventing boolean.
No, not really. Only the ones using languages that either lack a high-level notion of boolean or conflate it with an integer.
 (I have too - did you know that D 
 used to have a `bit` builtin type?)
Yes. I remember those days. It was renamed "bool" to better reflect its actual real-world use-cases.
 The programming landscape is 
 littered with the corpses of one after another.
Only in languages that either lack a built-in bool or conflate it with integers.
 Phobos has multiple ones 
 - RefCountedAutoInitialize .yes and .no,
Basically the same as the "struct Yes and No" below...(and if it's somehow *diffe rent* from the normal struct yes/no, then that sounds like a very clear Phobos failing...)
 and even a struct Yes and a 
 struct No.
Which Andrei *intentionally* created as a library-based substitute for *named arguments*, if you'll recall without contorting the true history.
 std.bitmanip has an enum A{True,False}. std.json has enum 
 E{True=true}. std.typecons has the bizarre enum 
 issue10647_isAlwaysTrue=true;.
 (One wonders what would happen if it was
 set to false. Would it cause a rip in the fabric of space-time? I dare
 not experiment with that!)
Yet more examples of how D either sucks at bool and/or needs named arguments. Thus, completely failing to provide support for the patently false "Every programmer, sooner or later, decides to [...] take a swing at inventing boolean" claim.
 The C++ Committee currently is fiercely debating adding a "Boolean" 
 construct in one of the longest threads I've ever seen. One of their 
 problems is it conflicts with the endless "Boolean" types added to 
 existing C++ code, along with every variation "Bool", "Bool", "boolean", 
 etc.
Alex, I'll take "Languages which conflate boolean with integer" for $500, please... Daily double!!!!
 All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as a 
 satisfactory bool type.
Correction: All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as a satisfactory bool type *in languages which conflate booleans with integers*
 On a final note, C++ added a std::vector<bool> special case, which works 
 unlike any other vector type. Years of experience have shown that to 
 have been a mistake, just like all the others, and it is widely derided 
 as a complete failure.
Ohh, I see..So...you're saying that special-casing an *aggregate* of a type **cough**char**cough** is bad. And furthermore, that in turn, demonstrates that the element type of a special-cased aggregate must therefore be unsound as well. Or is it that applying correct semantics to a type's aggregate without also applying them to the type itself is a recipe for disaster?
May 11
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 06:27:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
 All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as 
 a satisfactory bool type *in languages which conflate booleans 
 with integers*
FWIW I write C# for food and to me D bool is better than C# bool. Didn't watch, but if it's about the DIP I think of, its rationale was overload rules, Walter said he's not opposed to tune them. It was derailed into discussion about strong bool?
May 14
parent reply Mike Franklin <slavo5150 yahoo.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 May 2019 at 15:40:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 06:27:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 (Abscissa) wrote:
 All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as 
 a satisfactory bool type *in languages which conflate booleans 
 with integers*
FWIW I write C# for food and to me D bool is better than C# bool. Didn't watch, but if it's about the DIP I think of, its rationale was overload rules, Walter said he's not opposed to tune them. It was derailed into discussion about strong bool?
At the time the DIP was written, we didn't know Walter conflates bool and bit. Now that we do a new DIP could argue differently that bool and bit should not be conflated and that that would also fix the overload issues. Mike
May 14
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/14/19 8:47 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 May 2019 at 15:40:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 06:27:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as a 
 satisfactory bool type *in languages which conflate booleans with 
 integers*
FWIW I write C# for food and to me D bool is better than C# bool. Didn't watch, but if it's about the DIP I think of, its rationale was overload rules, Walter said he's not opposed to tune them. It was derailed into discussion about strong bool?
At the time the DIP was written, we didn't know Walter conflates bool and bit.  Now that we do a new DIP could argue differently that bool and bit should not be conflated and that that would also fix the overload issues.
There are many clowny things in D, of which bool is at best somewhere beyond the radar. I suggest investing time * expertise in the larger ones.
May 14
parent reply Mike Franklin <slavo5150 yahoo.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019 at 00:23:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 There are many clowny things in D, of which bool is at best 
 somewhere beyond the radar. I suggest investing time * 
 expertise in the larger ones.
Once again, I disagree with what you think is important. `bool` is a fundamental type on which many things in D depend. If it doesn't work right, neither will the features that depend on it. But, that's your decision, and there's little to nothing we can do about it, so I guess we just accept the fact that D is clowny and deal with it; it's what so many of us, so often do.
May 14
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/14/19 2:00 AM, Mike Franklin wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 May 2019 at 00:23:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
 There are many clowny things in D, of which bool is at best somewhere 
 beyond the radar. I suggest investing time * expertise in the larger 
 ones.
Once again, I disagree with what you think is important.  `bool` is a fundamental type on which many things in D depend.
I'd be hard pressed to find my style cramped by D's bool.
 If it doesn't work 
 right, neither will the features that depend on it.
 But, that's your 
 decision, and there's little to nothing we can do about it, so I guess 
 we just accept the fact that D is clowny and deal with it; it's what so 
 many of us, so often do.
(At any rate, going forward it's not me who needs convincing.) In my humble opinion, any language would have minor quirks, and a landmark of good engineering is attacking the right problems. That we even discuss just how bad bool is while we have no done deals for safety, reference counting, shared, package distribution/versioning, pay-as-you-go runtime, collections, ..., is a fascinating puzzle.
May 14
next sibling parent reply Mike Franklin <slavo5150 yahoo.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019 at 01:15:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 That we even discuss just how bad bool is while we have no done 
 deals for safety, reference counting, shared, package 
 distribution/versioning, pay-as-you-go runtime, collections, 
 ..., is a fascinating puzzle.
It can all be done simultaneously. I'm working on a couple of those items along with a few others simultaneously. I can't dedicate all my energy to one item, though. I often need to work on something, and then step away from it for a while. I then work on something else, and when I get back to the first item, I see with greater clarity. Also, sometimes I have to wait for others. For example, I submit a DIP, and I need to wait for it to go through the process. While that's happening I work on something else. And then, sometimes, I just don't have many cycles left at the end of the day. But I still find it therapeutic to work on trivial things; it relaxes me. There's no reason any and all work that moves D forward shouldn't be encouraged. If bool is clowny, and someone's willing to do something about it, why discourage them from doing so? Mike
May 14
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/14/2019 6:34 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
 If bool is clowny, and someone's willing to do something about it, 
 why discourage them from doing so?
Because core language changes necessarily consume a lot of other peoples' time, not just yours. This extends well beyond just the core developers - it will break existing code, have switches to alter the behavior, add complexity to the spec and the documentation, etc.
May 14
prev sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 7:15:43 PM MDT Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-
d-announce wrote:
 On 5/14/19 2:00 AM, Mike Franklin wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 May 2019 at 00:23:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 There are many clowny things in D, of which bool is at best somewhere
 beyond the radar. I suggest investing time * expertise in the larger
 ones.
Once again, I disagree with what you think is important. `bool` is a fundamental type on which many things in D depend.
I'd be hard pressed to find my style cramped by D's bool.
There are well-known issues where the current behavior causes bugs, and personally, I'd prefer that the DIP have been accepted, but I have to agree that it isn't a big problem. It's basically just one of those small warts in the language that it would be nice to have fixed, and a number of the people who come to D looking for a better language seem to want it to be absolutely perfect and want every minor issue fixed. Unfortunately, while that would be nice, it really isn't practical. Every language has warts, and if something like this were the worst issue that D had, then we'd be _very_ well off.
 If it doesn't work
 right, neither will the features that depend on it.
 But, that's your
 decision, and there's little to nothing we can do about it, so I guess
 we just accept the fact that D is clowny and deal with it; it's what so
 many of us, so often do.
(At any rate, going forward it's not me who needs convincing.) In my humble opinion, any language would have minor quirks, and a landmark of good engineering is attacking the right problems. That we even discuss just how bad bool is while we have no done deals for safety, reference counting, shared, package distribution/versioning, pay-as-you-go runtime, collections, ..., is a fascinating puzzle.
I think that in this case, it's a combination of it being a form of bikeshedding (since the DIP is on an issue that's easy to understand and have an opinion on) and that a DIP was written up for it and rejected. So, some of the folks who disagree with the decison want to debate it and somehow get a different decision. In general though, I think that the problem with tackling harder problems like ref-counting or shared or whatever is simply that it takes a lot more time and effort, and most people either don't have that kind of time or don't want to spend it on a hard problem (assuming that they even have enough expertise to do so in the first place). It's easy to point out and debate a small problem like how bool is treated like an integral type when many of us don't think that that it should ever be treated as an integral type, but it's much harder and more time-consuming to tackle the larger problems. So, unfortunately, the harder problems are too frequently left by the wayside. And as I'm sure you can attest to, even those of us who might consider tackling the harder problems have enough on our plates already that even if an issue is on our TODO list, it can easily be drowned out by other issues. Regardless, as a group, we do need to find ways to better tackle some of our larger, more pressing problems. The small stuff does matter, and it's easier to tackle, but if we're consistently trying to solve the small problems without tackling the larger ones, then we have a serious problem. - Jonathan M Davis
May 15
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Isaac S. <spam-no-reply-isaac outlook.com> writes:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 05:43:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/11/2019 7:27 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
 I understand. Every programmer, sooner or later, decides to 
 step up and take a swing at inventing boolean. (I have too - 
 did you know that D used to have a `bit` builtin type?)
Yes, D did have a bit type that was removed since it required special casing for something that didn't provide much of a benefit.
 The programming landscape is littered with the corpses of one 
 after another.
You say the programming landscape, yet give very limited examples. It would help to give examples in languages that did not have a hindered boolean type. In languages with a non-hindered boolean (e.g. Java) I've only ever seen custom booleans for overloading or to flag intent when named arguments are unsupported.
 Phobos has multiple ones
Well... yes, this is Phobos; Phobos is in need of a cleanup.
 RefCountedAutoInitialize .yes and .no
Something like this is probably a remnant of code made before std.typecons.Flag. It shouldn't have gotten into Phobos (regardless of if it was before or after std.typecons.Flag).
 and even a struct Yes and a struct No.
The structs Flag, Yes, and No should not be considered by themselves as they are all apart of the same concept. The Flag concept is to force a caller to explicitly state what true/false mean. This is desired due to the lack of named arguments in D.
 std.bitmanip has an enum A{True,False}. std.json has enum 
 E{True=true}.
In unittests they do. The std.bitmanip is most likely overzealously testing something (1-bit sized enum?). The std.json one is obviously testing if an enum with an underlying boolean value is correctly converted.
 std.typecons has the bizarre enum issue10647_isAlwaysTrue=true;.
Yes, that is bizarre. Considering its a enum constant of type bool, this doesn't pertain to custom boolean types.
 The C++ Committee currently is fiercely debating adding a 
 "Boolean" construct in one of the longest threads I've ever 
 seen. One of their problems is it conflicts with the endless 
 "Boolean" types added to existing C++ code, along with every 
 variation "Bool", "Bool", "boolean", etc.

 All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as 
 a satisfactory bool type.
No, this implies C++ had a boolean type that was lacking; which it *severely* is in type safety. There are multiple booleans in C++ because programmers are not going to unite on one *non-standard* boolean type. Even if the committee added one, it will take years for the damage to be undone (if ever).
 Will you succeed where 10,000 other programmers have failed?
 Seems unlikely. But I doubt I will dissuade you from trying.
Well other than the overstatement on reinventing the boolean; I do agree here that success is unlikely, but not for the same reason. A custom boolean type will be used infrequently (I'm certainly not depending on a dub package just for a boolean type), will have to be imported in *every* file it is used in, and will inevitably fracture whenever someone copies the code to their codebase.
 So what does work reasonably?
 Treating it like a small integer.
So mixing the concepts of true/false and numerical data is "reasonable". I'll have to remember that if I ever have a true/false test; 1's and 0's are quicker to write than T's and F's. Jokes aside, I have yet to see how making it a "small integer" improves this supposed reinventing-the-bool-wheel problem or makes it anymore useful than a normal boolean. In fact, it seems more-so like you've made a oval wheel: technically functional but not really.
 I know the operator ++ difference, and it is my fault that I 
 succumbed to a moment of boolean madness and allowed that in. 
 (++ on D bool is saturation arithmetic, unlike the overflow 
 semantics in every other integer type. It is a mistake, please 
 don't use that as justification for adding more quirky 
 behaviors.)
I don't have to justify other quirky behavior with ++ being saturated arithmetic because you said:
 Treating it like a small integer.
If bool is going to be a 1-bit integer with saturated arithmetic semantics, then it should act like one. +=, -=, *=, ^^=, /=, and %= should be allowed as it is a "small integer". Sure /= and %= would largely be a divide-by-zero operation, but at least bool would be the type unsafe "integer" it is suppose to be.
 We know what the various integer semantics are, and it fits 
 right in with that.
I have yet to see where bool fits into integer semantics reasonably without causing problems and annoyances (as well as having just generally weird behavior).
 On a final note, C++ added a std::vector<bool> special case, 
 which works unlike any other vector type. Years of experience 
 have shown that to have been a mistake, just like all the 
 others, and it is widely derided as a complete failure.
That isn't a fault of bool by any means, that is the fault of making an unnecessary special case that sometimes acts different from every other case. The real question to look at here is what Nick said:
 Do we have 'bool' because a 1-bit integer is useful, or do we 
 have
 'bool' because a "true vs false" abstraction is useful?
The answer to that, is because a "true vs false" abstraction is useful. A 1-bit integer provides no real benefit: I could still use a byte and get pretty much the same behavior (type unsafety and all!). I could even do like a lot of C/C++ code I've seen and use int. This is the crux of the argument: *How* does making bool an integer add to the language? We have examples of how making bool *not* an integer adds to the language, mainly in type safety; we still don't have examples of how making it an integer adds to the language.
May 12
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/12/19 11:27 AM, Isaac S. wrote:
 This is the crux of the argument: *How* does making bool an integer add 
 to the language?
The crux of the argument is there was a D Improvement Proposal on a small language change, and it was rejected. Rejected D Improvement Proposals on small matters that D language's leader thinks strongly about should allow everybody to move on to larger, better things. We are unable to, and should not be required to, provide argumentation when making a decision on a DIP that will be to the satisfaction of everybody involved. Of course, pressure does exist on making the right decision and on framing it properly; otherwise, one poor decision after another, we end up with a bad language that people will not want to use. Walter's last argument in this thread is poorly made and has several factual errors. He's traveling and with a bunch of stuff going on right after DConf. But the larger point is it doesn't matter - the DIP was looked at and rejected (I should add I concurred with the decision and still do). Bringing it up over and over again, like a perennial fight in a marriage, with the hope of finally convincing the spouse on the wrongness of their views - that all is wasted time. There's a bunch of big rocks to move.
May 12
next sibling parent reply Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 10:58:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Rejected D Improvement Proposals on small matters that D 
 language's leader thinks strongly about should allow everybody 
 to move on to larger, better things.

 We are unable to, and should not be required to, provide 
 argumentation when making a decision on a DIP that will be to 
 the satisfaction of everybody involved.
No no no, no. No. You have rejected the DIP to the annoyance of the community, That is fine. You have a decision making process. However in this case the community consensus is that the chain of reasoning you have used to arrive at your decision is wrong.
 Of course, pressure does exist on making the right decision and 
 on framing it properly;
Indeed, you should be making the right decisions _ for the right reasons_. I note that this is uncorrelated with wether or not we want the feature, c.f. refcounting before we had copy constructors (wanted it but couldn't have it because memory safety reasons) and opPostMove (didn't want to have to have it but e.g. couldn't interface with GCC's std::string).
 otherwise, one poor decision after another, we end up with a 
 bad language that people will not want to use.
Yes, but for the completely opposite reason. If the community believe the reasoning you provide for the decision you have made is wrong then we will end up with a language we not as satisfied with.
 [Because reasons] that all is wasted time.

 There's a bunch of big rocks to move.
Jut because we have a bunch of other large problems does not mean that we shouldn't be fixing other problems in the language that you happen to disagree with.
May 12
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/12/19 1:34 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
 However in this case the community consensus is that the chain of 
 reasoning you have used to arrive at your decision is wrong.
It's a simple enough matter to be understood, and reasonable to assume Walter is not missing any important facts or details. Poking holes in his explanations is, I confess, attractive, but ultimately are about debate skills rather than technical. I do agree that the way explanations on DIP decisions go could and should be improved a lot.
May 12
next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Sunday, May 12, 2019 8:50:33 AM MDT Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-
d-announce wrote:
 On 5/12/19 1:34 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
 However in this case the community consensus is that the chain of
 reasoning you have used to arrive at your decision is wrong.
It's a simple enough matter to be understood, and reasonable to assume Walter is not missing any important facts or details. Poking holes in his explanations is, I confess, attractive, but ultimately are about debate skills rather than technical. I do agree that the way explanations on DIP decisions go could and should be improved a lot.
Really, what it comes down to is that Walter has a very different view on what a bool is and what it means than many in the community. His explanation makes it clear why he made the decision that he made. Many of us don't agree with the decision, because we view bool and its purpose very differently, but unless someone has an argument that would actually convince Walter to look at bools differently, it's a pretty pointless discussion. It's frustrating, and many of us do think that D is worse than it could be because of the decision, but ultimately, Walter is the one in charge, and that's just how it goes. This just highlights how the language is ultimately controlled by the one or two people at the top and not by the community at large. It's not a democracy, which on the whole is a good thing. If all language decisions were made by majority vote, the language would be an utter mess. But that does have the downside that sometimes something that many people want doesn't happen, because those in charge don't agree. Such is life. Fortunately, in the grand scheme of things, while this issue does matter, it's still much smaller than almost all of the issues that we have to worry about and consider having DIPs for. Personally, I'm not at all happy that this DIP was rejected, but I think that continued debate on it is a waste of everyone's time. - Jonathan M Davis
May 12
parent Jon Degenhardt <jond noreply.com> writes:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 17:08:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 ... snip ...
 Fortunately, in the grand scheme of things, while this issue 
 does matter, it's still much smaller than almost all of the 
 issues that we have to worry about and consider having DIPs for.

 Personally, I'm not at all happy that this DIP was rejected, 
 but I think that continued debate on it is a waste of 
 everyone's time.
Agreed. I too have never liked numeric values equated to true/false, in any programming language. However, it is very common. And, relative to other the big ticket items on the table, of minor importance. Changing the current behavior won't materially affect the usability of D or its future. This is a case where the best course is to make a decision move on. --Jon
May 12
prev sibling parent reply Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 14:50:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 5/12/19 1:34 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
 However in this case the community consensus is that the chain 
 of reasoning you have used to arrive at your decision is wrong.
It's a simple enough matter to be understood, and reasonable to assume Walter is not missing any important facts or details. Poking holes in his explanations is, I confess, attractive, but ultimately are about debate skills rather than technical. I do agree that the way explanations on DIP decisions go could and should be improved a lot.
Then let me rephrase my complaints as a question (to you, Walter and the community): At what level of egregiousness of the degree to which the unanimous community consensus believes both your decision and chain of reasoning are fundamentally wrong, do we, the community, decide to reject your position completely and implement the community consensus?
May 12
parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Sunday, May 12, 2019 2:58:58 PM MDT Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 14:50:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 5/12/19 1:34 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
 However in this case the community consensus is that the chain
 of reasoning you have used to arrive at your decision is wrong.
It's a simple enough matter to be understood, and reasonable to assume Walter is not missing any important facts or details. Poking holes in his explanations is, I confess, attractive, but ultimately are about debate skills rather than technical. I do agree that the way explanations on DIP decisions go could and should be improved a lot.
Then let me rephrase my complaints as a question (to you, Walter and the community): At what level of egregiousness of the degree to which the unanimous community consensus believes both your decision and chain of reasoning are fundamentally wrong, do we, the community, decide to reject your position completely and implement the community consensus?
Anyone is free to fork the language at any time, but unless you're going to try to get Walter to step down, he's in charge of D, and he has the final say. It's obviously problematic if he makes a bad decison and no one can convince him otherwise, but if you can't convince him of something, and you're so convinced that he's wrong that you want to effectively take the decision away from him, then that basically comes down to forking the language or getting him to step down. The language and its implementation are certainly a cooperative effort, but ultimately, it's not a democracy. Walter is the one in charge, and it's his decision. He's chosen to share his position on some level with Andrei (and now Atila), but it's his language. Personally, I think that bool should never be treated as an integral value rather than always treated as an integral value or partially treated as an integral value. The current behavior is arguably a bad legacy from C/C++, and it definitely causes bugs. So, I'm quite disappointed with the rejection of this DIP. But I honestly don't think that this is a big enough issue to effectively start discussing how or when we take the decision making power away from Walter. Unless someone can come up with a way to convince Walter to view bools differently (which I very much doubt is going to happen), I think that it's quite clear that we're just going to have to learn to continue to live with the status quo on this issue. - Jonathan M Davis
May 12
prev sibling parent reply Exil <Exil gmall.com> writes:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 10:58:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Bringing it up over and over again, like a perennial fight in a 
 marriage, with the hope of finally convincing the spouse on the 
 wrongness of their views - that all is wasted time.

 There's a bunch of big rocks to move.
I take it from this response you mean, once a DIP is rejected it would never be looked at again, even if a second DIP was created for the same purpose with different arguments? So changes like this one should be reversed then? https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5343 And isIntegral should also be updated to include bool? Where is the line drawn? Should it be treated like an integral only in the language but not in phobos?
May 12
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/12/19 10:17 PM, Exil wrote:
 On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 10:58:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Bringing it up over and over again, like a perennial fight in a 
 marriage, with the hope of finally convincing the spouse on the 
 wrongness of their views - that all is wasted time.

 There's a bunch of big rocks to move.
I take it from this response you mean, once a DIP is rejected it would never be looked at again, even if a second DIP was created for the same purpose with different arguments?
A new DIP argued differently would be considered. If that's not in the official DIP guidelines, it should.
May 13
prev sibling parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 10:27:42 UTC, Isaac S. wrote:
 So mixing the concepts of true/false and numerical data is 
 "reasonable". I'll have to remember that if I ever have a 
 true/false test; 1's and 0's are quicker to write than T's and 
 F's.
I agree with you that bool should be kept separate from ints, but in low level programming on some RISC architectures where branching is expensive it brings significant performance benefits to do things like this: x = a*(y<3) + b*(z>5); This was a common trick for writing branch-free high performance code on SGI machines (MIPS based) in the 90s. Not that D is used for this kind of performance oriented coding, but there are use cases related to low level programming that makes it reasonable. Although a cast is a good tradeoff. (It is completely unreasonable for high level programming however.)
May 19
prev sibling parent FeepingCreature <feepingcreature gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 05:43:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as 
 a satisfactory bool type. Will you succeed where 10,000 other 
 programmers have failed? Seems unlikely. But I doubt I will 
 dissuade you from trying.
If you succeed at implementing bool, nobody debates it. As such, the huge debates are intrinsically of people failing at implementing bool. A successful boolean implementation is invisible.
 So what does work reasonably? Treating it like a small integer.
Yes, because it's clearly succeeding at avoiding huge forum debates...
May 13
prev sibling parent reply Mike Franklin <slavo5150 yahoo.com> writes:
On Saturday, 11 May 2019 at 20:35:40 UTC, Exil wrote:

 Sure it is convenient to have some properties of bool also be 
 similar to an integer, but it can definitely not be swapped in 
 to be used like a 1-bit integer and there are already plenty of 
 special rules for it.
Thanks for that analysis. So we have a bool that is neither a boolean nor a bit. That stinks. Walter and Andrei have made their decision, so it doesn't look like we'll be able to do anything about it unless maybe Atila feels that it's something that needs to be addressed. Anyway, I'm of the mind that the language should just provide a set of powerful, composable primitives and delegate course-grained features and specializations to the library. I've been re-imagining druntime and phobos at lot lately and I'm more confident that we can define a wrapper around `bool` to give it proper boolean semantics. Maybe, if Walter would support it, we could then fix bool to make it a proper `bit`. Then in the library `alias bit = bool;` and live happily ever after. If anyone's looking for a challenge, I welcome them to propose a new `Bool` type (note the capital B) for inclusion in my new library. Mike
May 12
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 01:20:16PM +0000, Mike Franklin via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
 If anyone's looking for a challenge, I welcome them to propose a new
 `Bool` type (note the capital B) for inclusion in my new library.
[...] As long as && and || continue to evaluate to a 1-bit integer, all library efforts to implement Bool will be futile. T -- Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
May 12
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/12/19 11:46 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 01:20:16PM +0000, Mike Franklin via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 [...]
 If anyone's looking for a challenge, I welcome them to propose a new
 `Bool` type (note the capital B) for inclusion in my new library.
[...] As long as && and || continue to evaluate to a 1-bit integer, all library efforts to implement Bool will be futile.
When writing std.typecons.Ternary I thought of overloading opBinary for | and & to take a lazy argument on the right. I forgot why I ended up not doing it (I think it was because of code generation issues). This is something that could be made to work.
May 13
parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:16:04AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 On 5/12/19 11:46 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 01:20:16PM +0000, Mike Franklin via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 [...]
 If anyone's looking for a challenge, I welcome them to propose a
 new `Bool` type (note the capital B) for inclusion in my new
 library.
[...] As long as && and || continue to evaluate to a 1-bit integer, all library efforts to implement Bool will be futile.
When writing std.typecons.Ternary I thought of overloading opBinary for | and & to take a lazy argument on the right. I forgot why I ended up not doing it (I think it was because of code generation issues). This is something that could be made to work.
The problem is that && and || cannot be overloaded (and for very good reasons -- it would open the door to C++-style egregious operator overload abuse), and the alternatives & and | have the wrong precedence, so you wouldn't be able to write boolean expressions with Bool naturally the way you could with the built-in bool type. It would not be a drop-in replacement and you would have to rewrite every single boolean expression to use Bool instead, and that with a high chance of introducing subtle errors because of the different precedence of & and |. Boolean expressions and the associated boolean type is one of the things that should be baked into the language (it'd be a mess otherwise), but that also means that if the language doesn't get it right you have no recourse. T -- Too many people have open minds but closed eyes.
May 13
prev sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?QXVyw6lsaWVu?= Plazzotta <thatsme gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 11 May 2019 at 07:53:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 Anyone interested in the AGM can watch it at the following 
 link. You can leave feedback there, in IRC, or in Discord.

 https://youtu.be/cpTAtiboIDs
Will there be a plan to revive the dip 1017 - add a Bottom type and submit a stronger proposal thanks to the Human Resource Fund?
May 12