www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - D Language Foundation Monthly Meeting Summary for March 2022

reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
The monthly meeting for March 2022 took place on March 4 at 15:00 
UTC. The following foundation staff and contributors were present:

* Andrei Alexandrescu
* Walter Bright
* Iain Buclaw
* Ali
* Martin Kinkelin
* Dennis Korpel
* Mathias Lang
* Razvan Nitu
* Mike Parker

This was a three-hour meeting that covered a lot of ground.

I want to note that when someone makes an argument or suggestion 
in these meetings, they usually use a good bit of dialogue to 
make their case. And, more often than not, there is some amount 
of discussion as people reinforce the points raised. For context, 
and in anticipation of reader questions or inferences, I 
sometimes note some of the points raised when I think it's useful 
to do so and the points aren't too complex for a concise summary, 
but I'll usually leave out things people say that reinforce those 
points. My goal isn't to summarize everything everyone said, but 
just the major points and counterpoints raised. Sometimes, when I 
feel like I can't concisely summarize the larger context of 
someone's argument, or if the larger context isn't relevant, I'll 
just condense things down to "so-and-so suggested x". I just want 
to make it clear that there is always more to that "x" than just 
"x".



While we were waiting for everyone to arrive, I gave an update on 
the status of our plans to bring all of the ecosystem services 
under our control. At that point, I had received information on 
the resource requirements of services maintained by Vladimir 
Panteleev (the D forums, D wiki, and more), Jan Knepper (the main 
dlang.org site, the newsgroup server, the D blog), and Petar 
Kirov (run.dlang.io and tour.dlang.io). I also had received 
affirmative responses from those three to my invitation to join 
our next server meeting. Since that time, I have also received 
the same from Sönke Ludwig (code.dlang.org).

Throughout February, I had received advice from different people 
about which name registrar we should sign up with. At the 
meeting, everyone agreed I should just pick one and be done with 
it. I have since signed up with Namecheap. Now I'm waiting for 
the owner of dlang.io to get back to me about handing it over to 
us (he brought it up in an email to me back in January). Walter 
has always maintained dlang.org, and he will transfer it to our 
new account in the future.


I informed everyone that Andrei and I had decided to terminate 
our Flipcause account at the end of this year. We signed up for 
it initially with the hope that it would be beneficial to us, but 
in the end, we decided the value we get from it isn't worth the 
annual fee (if we had a higher volume of donations, it would 
really be great for us because most donors there cover the 
transaction fees, an option PayPal doesn't offer, so it could 
potentially pay for itself). I'll miss the ability to set up 
targeted campaigns with a variety of optional features to choose 
from, but the annual membership fee we pay them would be better 
spent on server hosting. (That said, if you plan to register for 
DConf '22, please use [the Flipcause page we've set up for 
it](https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/MTQ3NjEy)). 
For those of you making monthly donations through Flipcause, I'll 
contact you later this year to notify you when we're ready to 
shut it down.


In the middle of the meeting, I received an email from Symmetry 
with their proposed DConf registration rates. They asked me to 
get feedback from the foundation staff. Given the fortuitous 
timing, I interrupted the meeting to get everyone's opinion. They 
all gave the thumbs up. Those are the rates [you now see at 
dconf.org](https://dconf.org/2022/index.html#register). Walter 
suggested we also offer a hardship rate as we have done at past 
conferences. I have added information about that to the site.


Martin let us know that LDC was prepared for the next major 
release. He said there was one thing he was getting ready to do 
that he had been wanting to do for years: change the `extern(D)` 
calling convention to not reverse the formal parameters anymore. 
Until very recently, there was a coupling between DRuntime and 
the compiler which depended on this reverse order. This is an 
issue that has persistently popped up in the forums. It 
especially was a problem when someone was trying to fix Dwarf 
emission.

One problem with this is that naked asm functions that take 
multiple parameters, and which assume parameters are in specific 
registers or stack slots, will break. He had to change some 
things in Phobos, which makes a significant diff between LDC 
Phobos and upstream Phobos. It will be easier if DMD can follow 
suit.



Iain has been ending the deprecation period of things that were 
deprecated and forgotten about, and adding end dates for 
deprecated features that did not have one. He iterated a few 
examples, some of which are now errors. Walter asked about the 
status of complex types. Iain said they were already deprecated, 
but now they have a date set.

During this discussion, Iain remembered that he would like to add 
a `toNative` function to `std.complex`. Although the library 
implementation is binary compatible with the C type, a struct 
with two doubles may not be passed as a parameter in the same way 
as a C complex type. The `toNative` function would ensure 
compatibility in that case.


In his iteration of deprecated features that are now errors, Iain 
mentioned `scope interface`. This led to a conversation about 
`scope struct` and `scope class` types. Before the instance-level 
`scope foo = new Foo` became the accepted means to force stack 
allocation, it started life as a feature for type declarations, 
e.g., `scope class Foo {}`, the meaning of which is that all 
instances of `Foo` are allocated on the stack. This has a problem 
that occurs with composition (if a type has a member that is a 
`scope` type, then that type is also effectively a scope type). 
Ultimately, everyone agreed to deprecate scope types. (Since 
then, two PRs have been merged that deprecate scope on 
[struct/union & enum 
declarations](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/13767), and [also 
on class declarations](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/13669)).


As for GDC, Iain's still keeping track with master. Martin asked 
about a flurry of PRs Iain had submitted upstream, to which Iain 
responded that he's been testing on a variety of targets (Big 
Endian targets, strict alignment targets, etc.), and that has led 
him to discover several regressions in DRuntime.



Razvan has gathered a couple of students who are working on 
integrating DMD as a library for dscanner. They are trying to 
replace all occurrences of libdparse, but it turns out they need 
to make some modifications to the frontend to provide an 
interface that matches what tools using libdparse expect.

The first change was to create a range interface for the lexer, 
versioned in the frontend. Walter requested that they move the 
range interface to a new module rather than making such an 
intrusive change in the lexer itself. Razvan said that's not a 
problem, but some changes do need to be made to the lexer. 
Specifically, DMD drops whitespace, newlines, and comments, but 
libdparse does not, so some code needs to be added to the lexer 
so that they aren't dropped when DMD is used as a library. Walter 
suggested creating a libdparse module to the frontend for the new 
code if possible to avoid adding versioned blocks to the lexer. 
Razvan agreed to look into it.


In his SAOC 2021 project (replacing DRuntime hooks with 
templates), Teodor Dutu encountered a situation where replacing 
the hook for throwing exceptions results in linker errors in some 
cases (it's related to template emission when mixing objects 
compiled with different switches). The only way to move forward 
is to compile DRuntime and Phobos with `-dip1008`. Unfortunately, 
DIP 1008 requires that exceptions not escape the catch block when 
they are caught, but Phobos does this in some cases by either 
saving the exception to a variable or returning it. This prevents 
it from compiling with `-dip1008`.

Razvan says it's not obvious how to solve this. Cloning the 
exceptions puts the burden on the user to free the memory, and 
that's not a good solution. Moreover, DRuntime is still using the 
GC for all exceptions under the hood when `-dip1008` is enabled 
to allocate the stack trace ([as Razvan first discovered in the 
now-closed PR he submitted in 
2019](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/10561#issuecomment-553824621) to enable
`-dip1008` by default). Martin noted that the GC is used in trace demangling as
well. There was a good bit of discussion about this, with Walter finally asking
Razvan to make sure there was a Bugzilla issue linking to Razvan's PR for
context.


Going through some old DRuntime pull requests, Razvan found 
several PRs adding reference-counted things (RCArray, RCPointer, 
etc) from a period when reference counting was a hot topic in the 
D community. The problem with reference counting in D has been 
the transitivity of qualifiers (e.g., you can't reference count 
an immutable object). Razvan remembered he had drafted [a DIP for 
a `__metadata` storage 
class](https://github.com/RazvanN7/DIPs/blob/Mutable_Dip/DIPs/DIP1xxx-rn.md).
In a forum discussion on that DIP, Timon Gehr had pointed out two fundamental
issues with it (anyone interested can see [the forum discussion
thread](https://forum.dlang.org/post/3f1f9263-88d8-fbf7-a8c5-b3a2a5
24ce0 erdani.org)). Ultimately Razvan's progress stalled and he never submitted
the DIP.

In our meeting, he said he would like to see what the community 
thinks about this DIP now but would like to know first if this is 
still important for us. This led to a significant discussion that 
touched on various aspects of reference counting and immutable: 
the possibility of a more restrictive form of C++ `mutable` (in 
the form of something like `__metadata`: not part of the type, 
not part of the object status, possibly stored before the pointer 
of the object, etc.), why allowing modification of immutable 
variables from a `pragma(crt_constructor)` is a bad idea, the 
pros and cons of replacing `pragma(crt_constructor)` with 
`extern(C) shared static this` (which in turn would allow 
initializing immutables when there's no DRuntime). I expect 
Razvan will be revisiting this in the forums in the future.


Razvan next brought up [a two-year-old DRuntime 
PR](https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/2901) for making 
`malloc` and `calloc` ` trusted`. He had intended to merge it, 
but Iain removed the automerge tag. Razvan asked why it can't be 
merged. Iain's primary motivation was that there were 20 months 
between the last comment and automerge being applied. The PR has 
a large discussion thread, so Iain wanted to give time for it to 
be digested in the present and start the discussion again if 
necessary to prevent the case where it's merged, but then we 
realize two weeks later it has problems.

So Iain prompted a new discussion in the meeting: is `malloc` 
really trusted? There was a lot of input on this: what do we gain 
by it; both require an unsafe cast of untyped memory; `calloc` 
has a stronger case because it initializes memory; `malloc` might 
be safe in specific situations, like when emplacing; or maybe not 
in that case since it takes no type information; and so on. In 
the end, Andrei asserted that `malloc` and `calloc` are unsafe 
because they use untyped memory and there's just no way around 
it. Walter suggested that Andrei's answer be added to the PR 
discussion and the PR closed. Andrei proposed stating the 
argument in the PR thread, but not closing it yet to allow for 
the chance that someone can come along with a compelling code 
example that shows how making `malloc` trusted would be 
beneficial.

Razvan did so, and that prompted more discussion on the issue:

https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/2901#issuecomment-1060702512

At the end of which, Walter has since weighed in with a final 
decision:

https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/2901#issuecomment-1086999519


Dennis asked for clarification on a couple of contradictory spec 
PRs that aimed to clarify what happens with overlarge shifts 
(e.g., shifting a 32-bit value by 33 bits). [The first was from 
2016](https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2578), in which 
Walter changed the spec from saying it's "illegal" to saying it's 
"implementation-defined". After Andrei requested changes, Walter 
never got back to it. In response to a Bugzilla issue, [he opened 
a second PR in 
2019](https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1420) in which he 
changed it to "undefined behavior". In that thread, "unspecified 
behavior" was raised as an alternative. Dennis wanted to know 
which PR is correct.

Walter explained that it's not actually undefined behavior (which 
could result in "launching nuclear missiles" or something), but 
is softer than that. It's either going to result in 0 or in 
wrapping around, so it should be "implementation-defined".

Dennis asked Martin what LDC's (LLVM's) optimizer does in that 
case (being based on C). Martin said the LLVM docs specify it to 
be a poison value, which [is defined in those same 
docs](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#poisonvalues) as 
possibly leading to undefined behavior in certain circumstances. 
Walter noted that compilers can choose to delete code that is 
specified as undefined behavior, which is the wrong answer for 
the case of over-shifting.

There was general agreement that "implementation-defined" is the 
way to go.



Now that we have migrated dlang.org emails from our mail server 
to Google Workspace, Mathias hopes we can set up a mailing list 
there to discuss language issues outside of the monthly meetings 
so that we can save time during the meetings and decrease the 
chance of overlooking things.


On many occasions, Mathias has wanted to be able to use `scope` 
to allocate dynamic arrays on the stack in the same way we use it 
to allocate classes on the stack via, e.g., `scope c = new 
MyClass`. He's tried wrapping allocations in a typesafe variadic 
function, but you can't concatenate them. He wanted to know if 
there was any opposition to this. Walter said it sounds perfectly 
reasonable. Dennis said he had [already opened a Bugzilla issue 
for it](https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22306).

Mathias said he can look at implementing it if he gets some time. 
If anyone wants to beat him to it, please let him know. This does 
not require a DIP, just someone to implement it.


In our quarterly meeting last October, we agreed that the 
behavior enabled by `-preview=in` should be the default, with the 
exception that it should always imply `ref` instead of letting 
the compiler decide (see the section 'The fate of -preview=in' 
[in my summary of that 
meeting](https://forum.dlang.org/post/orhmmphjmtdmpbsiwrjq forum.dlang.org)).

One of the problems he's faced is in making it work with 
`extern(C++)`. There's some disparity between the std C++ 
bindings in DRuntime and those in the DMD test suite, so he's 
trying to put everything together in DRuntime. He noted that a 
mono repository containing DRuntime and the D frontend (something 
we've discussed in the past) would be beneficial here.

Another problem is that when `in` is used as a delegate parameter 
in `opApply`, then `in` must also be usable with `foreach` 
variables. Walter said that makes sense.


Something that would make writing code easier is the inference of 
storage classes on delegate parameters. He pointed to [an old 
issue in Bugzilla](https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9423) 
and [its linked discussion 
thread](https://forum.dlang.org/thread/mixmakdqfmaznmmnizux forum.dlang.org)
where there were mixed opinions on whether `ref` should be inferred or required
on delegate parameters. Those who wanted to require it were thinking of `ref`

call, but on the parameters in the delegate. Mathias doesn't think that makes
much sense. It prevents us from doing things like passing delegates to
`std.algorithm` that default to `ref` to avoid copying.

Mathias has wanted this for a while, but has put it off because 
the behavior in the presence of overloads is "a bit tricky", but 
he believes this is something we should have. Walter had no 
opinion on this yet and would like to look into the details 
first. Mathias suggested this is something we could discuss on 
the dlang.org mailing list, and Walter agreed.


Having `-checkaction=context` as the default will be beneficial 
to the language, but it's currently broken. Unfortunately, a 
recent change broke it differently. We should find a solution for 
that. The feature is a no-brainer, and once you start using it 
you never go back.

Dennis noted that one reason not to use it is that it increases 
compile times, and Mathias said he hadn't considered that.


Mathias thinks that inference on private functions is something 
everyone would want. It's something he heard Walter mention in 
the past. The current blocker on that is that attribute inference 
doesn't work for recursive functions. He thinks the solution is 
simple: you should assume that the function has all the 
attributes; if you recurse on yourself, the rest of the code will 
help you infer the attributes. Walter said that makes sense; the 
more attribute inference we can do the better.

Andrei noted that we should be careful in the future if we add an 
expansive attribute, as that would prevent this from working. He 
also mentioned that there is a, possibly tenuous, argument to be 
made about the safety of recursive functions due to the 
possibility of stack overflows.

Martin suggested this requires evaluation of its compile-time 
costs. Walter said that's a reasonable point, but thinks we'll 
just have to endure it. We've got so many attributes that the 
more inference we can do the better the user experience. Martin 
said that as long as compile times don't double, that's fine.

Andrei noted that there have been studies, e.g., with Java, 
showing that people generally don't write attributes. More 
inference is the way to go.


Mathias says we resolve aliases in the compiler too early, 
causing the name assigned as the alias to be lost. For example, 
in error messages, you see the aliased thing, not the alias 
itself. It also creates problems with visibility. Sometimes you 
want to have a public alias to something private, but you can't 
do that because the compiler sees right through the alias.

Walter said the visibility issue is a feature, not a bug. It was 
a deliberate decision. Allowing a public alias to a private 
symbol violates encapsulation. Mathias provided a use case from 
his company in which they essentially wanted to hide a private 
getter function in a struct behind an `alias this`, i.e., allow 
the subtyping but not allow direct access to the getter. Walter 
argued that the alias allows direct access to the getter anyway 
and creates a hole in the type system. Mathias argued that it has 
to be done in the same module anyway, and since `private` is at 
module scope, he doesn't think it breaks encapsulation. Walter 
said that if Mathias can make a compelling argument for this, 
then he'll consider it, but for the moment he can't see any good 
reason to allow it.

Razvan suggested that if anyone wants to hide a private symbol 
behind a public alias, they should just wrap the private thing in 
a public function. Walter agreed, but will still consider a 
compelling use case if someone can show him one.


Ali said he managed to convert one of his programs to SSH copy 
itself to a server and work like rsync. He said he's a happy D 
user as always.

One of Ali's coworkers is a Rust enthusiast. He and Ali agreed on 
a sort of challenge to each code a certain program, Ali's in D, 
his coworker's in Rust, and maybe write a blog post about their 
experience. He asked that anyone with suggestions on what that 
program should be to please let him know. I don't know if any of 
the others subsequently emailed him with ideas, or if he's still 
looking, but anyone reading this, please post ideas in this 
thread. Maybe Ali can chime in on what has happened since.



Walter reported that ImportC is coming along nicely, and he has 
fixed a bunch of ImportC bugs. Unfortunately, some bugs are 
intractable and we may just have to live with them. Transitive 
const is an example: C doesn't have it, but ImportC does. Someone 
found a case in a C header (a const pointer to a mutable object) 
that resulted in a compile-time error. Walter's not sure if 
that's fixable.

ImportC has advanced to the point where we need to be working on 
getting the preprocessor up in some form. Max had volunteered to 
look into it in, but Walter didn't know if he had done so yet. If 
not, we need to get seriously working on it. Not having compiler 
support for running the preprocessor is a crippling user 
experience problem. Iain has concerns that if the D compiler is 
invoking the C preprocessor, it might not be calling the correct 
one. This led to a discussion about invoking a preprocessor vs. 
having our own.

Martin raised a point about a potential problem with ImportC in 
LDC (and probably other compilers) related to how ImportC handles 
C header files. The short of it: importing the same header in 
multiple D modules will result in the repetition of C 
declarations. He says the solution is for ImportC to treat each C 
header as a D module. Walter isn't sure that will be an actual 
problem in practice, but he thinks Martin's solution is a good 
one.

Iain raised [an ImportC 
issue](https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22842) that he 
thought would be difficult to fix. Walter has since fixed it.


Walter had begun working on reducing the number of DIP 1000 bugs 
in Bugzilla. Many of them turned out to be duplicates, but a 
number of them are related to foreach loops and delegates which 
need to be cleared up.

One of the problems with going to DIP 1000 by default is what to 
do about `ref return scope` ambiguity. Walter had finally come up 
with a fix that was half-implemented. Some of the PRs had been 
merged, but others were stalled. Those stalled PRs are blocking 
progress on DIP 1000, and he wants to get those moving.


Andrei was unable to attend the last meeting where we had an 
inconclusive discussion about bitfields in D, but we've since had 
an ongoing email discussion. Andrei suggested we continue that 
discussion here.

He started by arguing that reflection on built-in bitfields is 
"just warped". You're going to have things less than 8-bit and to 
which you cannot take a pointer. Any proposal for bitfields must 
account for that. Walter's solution of having 
`__traits(getMembers)` return an aggregate is only half of the 
story. What about the getters and setters? A library solution has 
those, but for the built-ins, they're compiler magic. Martin 
agreed (and this is his main sticking point; he brought it up in 
the last meeting).

To handle the getters/setters, Walter thinks it may work to have 
a new trait that can query if a given member is a bitfield or 
something like that, but he hasn't worked it out yet. An 
alternative is that the compiler can "rig up" the getters/setters.

Andrei argued that the cost of special-casing reflection just for 
bitfields must be weighed vs. the convenience of "we already have 
them in ImportC, let's just enable them in D". He says reflection 
on bitfields is a serious liability.

Iain asked if bitfields are really the issue? Why not just have 
n-bit types? To which Andrei responded that D used to have a bit 
type, but it was removed precisely because of the liabilities 
that would accompany built-in bitfields.

Ali argued that we should make the library bitfield syntax like 
the C bitfield syntax. Martin doesn't think that brings us 
anything. `getMembers` still returns the template instance and 
not the fields.

Martin noted bitfields have an advantage over the library 
implementation and Iain's n-bits type in that you can add 
comments to each individual bitfield member.

Walter noted that using the library bitfields is problematic for 
static initializers. Andrei said that's a valid point, but it 
could be addressed in the library code.

Mathias suggested the current implementation takes the wrong 
approach in defining fields to match how one would use bitfields 
in C. He thinks instead it should just define accessors and align 
on byte. His company took that approach for its own solution. 
Andrei said that's a valid alternative and would simplify the 
code.

There was a lot more discussion on this and some tangentially 
related topics (the possibility of making the library solution 
compatible with the layout of C compilers, simplifying the 
library syntax, n-bits on FPGA, packed bools, a standardized D 
bitfield layout vs. compatibility with C implementations, and 
more). Much too much to summarize here.

I don't believe we reached a conclusion on this, but Andrei did 
suggest Walter should experiment with the library implementation 
before moving forward with a built-in implementation.


Our next meeting is a quarterly meeting, so it will involve the 
usual industry representatives. It's scheduled for Friday, April 
8 at 14:00 UTC.

As usual, please let me know if you have an issue you'd like to 
bring up for discussion at a foundation meeting. Our quarterly 
meetings tend to run longer (three hours is highly unusual for a 
monthly meeting), so I'm unlikely to bring you into this next 
meeting unless it's something that can benefit from input from 
the industry reps, but we currently have room at the next monthly 
meeting in May.
Apr 04
next sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 10:59:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:


Razvan has opened these two issues for this: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22985 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22986
Apr 04
prev sibling next sibling parent reply rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:


 Going through some old DRuntime pull requests, Razvan found several PRs 
 adding reference-counted things (RCArray, RCPointer, etc) from a period 
 when reference counting was a hot topic in the D community. The problem 
 with reference counting in D has been the transitivity of qualifiers 
 (e.g., you can't reference count an immutable object). Razvan remembered 
 he had drafted [a DIP for a `__metadata` storage 
 class](https://github.com/RazvanN7/DIPs/blob/Mutable_Dip/DIPs/DIP1xxx-rn.md). 
 In a forum discussion on that DIP, Timon Gehr had pointed out two 
 fundamental issues with it (anyone interested can see [the forum 
 discussion 
 thread](https://forum.dlang.org/post/3f1f9263-88d8-fbf7-a8c5-b3a2a5
24ce0 erdani.org)). 
 Ultimately Razvan's progress stalled and he never submitted the DIP.
I stand by my comments about read only memory. A person can still at runtime mark memory as read only, unfortunately I don't know how you can detect this in a compiler and fail compilation because of it. My preference continues to be three new operator overloads methods for classes and structs. opRefAdd, opRefSub, opReadOnly. The first two are like destructors, they ignore const. The last tells the type (must not be const) that it is going into read only memory allowing it to know that it is no longer writable. It would be required if reference counting methods are implemented. The main difference to __mutable which was argued that it should not allow going into read only memory is that: the compiler can't detect if the user does it, but can prevent itself from doing it. That gives a very false sense of guarantee that it will not be. Where as with this approach it is clearly the responsibility of the one who put it into read only memory to call the method and for the programmer who wrote the type to have done the right thing in the methods. Giving no guarantees and hence no sense of security.

 Mathias thinks that inference on private functions is something everyone 
 would want. It's something he heard Walter mention in the past. The 
 current blocker on that is that attribute inference doesn't work for 
 recursive functions. He thinks the solution is simple: you should assume 
 that the function has all the attributes; if you recurse on yourself, 
 the rest of the code will help you infer the attributes. Walter said 
 that makes sense; the more attribute inference we can do the better.
+1 infer everything! I suspect you can do some quick and cheap tests in the parser to determine if given a function scope if a given attribute such as safe should be inferred later on. If done well, it could mean safe by default!

 He started by arguing that reflection on built-in bitfields is "just 
 warped". You're going to have things less than 8-bit and to which you 
 cannot take a pointer. Any proposal for bitfields must account for that. 
 Walter's solution of having `__traits(getMembers)` return an aggregate 
 is only half of the story. What about the getters and setters? A library 
 solution has those, but for the built-ins, they're compiler magic. 
 Martin agreed (and this is his main sticking point; he brought it up in 
 the last meeting).
enum __c_bitfield; is(typeof(value.bitfield) == __c_bitfield) As long as .sizeof is the real size accounting for "empty" bits and alignment that should be a fairly safe way to go. It accounts for a single pointer and requires a special reflection mechanism to get the tuples of number of bits + names + types.
Apr 04
next sibling parent Adam D Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 12:23:54 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
 +1 infer everything!
Well, you *can't* infer everything, but private things I do think you can get away with since they're not allowed to be virtual. Inferring more on non-virtual things is a maybe, you still have to think about the abi mismatches there but that might work.
Apr 04
prev sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 12:23:54AM +1200, rikki cattermole via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
 +1 infer everything!
I agree, in principle. The ideal is 100% inference. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to be actually reachable. Nevertheless, we should definitely move in the direction of more inference vs. less. T -- Life is complex. It consists of real and imaginary parts. -- YHL
Apr 04
prev sibling next sibling parent Dennis <dkorpel gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 10:59:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 One of the problems with going to DIP 1000 by default is what 
 to do about `ref return scope` ambiguity. Walter had finally 
 come up with a fix that was half-implemented. Some of the PRs 
 had been merged, but others were stalled. Those stalled PRs are 
 blocking progress on DIP 1000, and he wants to get those moving.
Status update: the `ref return scope` ambiguity is fixed now ([PR 13693](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/13693)), as well as the invalid [pure->scope inferrence](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/12989) and [inout->return inference](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/12689). Currently, most remaining open issues are related to nested functions. Atila resumed work on making dip1000 the default [by printing deprecation messages for scope errors](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/12578).
Apr 04
prev sibling next sibling parent Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 10:59:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 While we were waiting for everyone to arrive, I gave an update 
 on the status of our plans to bring all of the ecosystem 
 services under our control. At that point, I had received 
 information on the resource requirements of services maintained 
 by Vladimir Panteleev (the D forums, D wiki, and more), Jan 
 Knepper (the main dlang.org site, the newsgroup server, the D 
 blog), and Petar Kirov (run.dlang.io and tour.dlang.io). I also 
 had received affirmative responses from those three to my 
 invitation to join our next server meeting. Since that time, I 
 have also received the same from Sönke Ludwig (code.dlang.org).
The dub documentation, hosted at https://dub.pm should also be in that list. Currently there is a problem updating that site, see https://github.com/dlang/dub-docs/issues/41. -- Bastiaan.
Apr 05
prev sibling next sibling parent Arun <aruncxy gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 10:59:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 The monthly meeting for March 2022 took place on March 4 at 
 15:00 UTC. The following foundation staff and contributors were 
 present:

 [...]
Thanks for summarizing!
Apr 05
prev sibling parent Harrison Ford (hatf0) <harrison 0xcc.pw> writes:
On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 10:59:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 While we were waiting for everyone to arrive, I gave an update 
 on the status of our plans to bring all of the ecosystem 
 services under our control. At that point, I had received 
 information on the resource requirements of services maintained 
 by Vladimir Panteleev (the D forums, D wiki, and more), Jan 
 Knepper (the main dlang.org site, the newsgroup server, the D 
 blog), and Petar Kirov (run.dlang.io and tour.dlang.io). I also 
 had received affirmative responses from those three to my 
 invitation to join our next server meeting. Since that time, I 
 have also received the same from Sönke Ludwig (code.dlang.org).

 Throughout February, I had received advice from different 
 people about which name registrar we should sign up with. At 
 the meeting, everyone agreed I should just pick one and be done 
 with it. I have since signed up with Namecheap. Now I'm waiting 
 for the owner of dlang.io to get back to me about handing it 
 over to us (he brought it up in an email to me back in 
 January). Walter has always maintained dlang.org, and he will 
 transfer it to our new account in the future.
BTW, if the foundation ever wants to take https://dla.ng off of my hands, please feel free to reach out and we could arrange something — I’d be happy to transfer the domain over. Only main thing is finding a registrar that supports the .ng domain, I’m not sure that Namecheap supports them.
Apr 06