www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Any front end experts n da house?

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
So it would be great to get the super annoying 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259 to a conclusion, and it 
seems the similarly annoying 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14835 is in the way.

If anyone would like to look into the latter that would be great. Good 
regression testing (e.g. on dub projects) would be necessary.


Andrei
Oct 12 2016
parent reply Stefan Koch <uplink.coder googlemail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 16:27:05 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:

 So it would be great to get the super annoying 
 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259 to a conclusion, 
 and it seems the similarly annoying 
 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14835 is in the way.

 If anyone would like to look into the latter that would be 
 great. Good regression testing (e.g. on dub projects) would be 
 necessary.


 Andrei


I can take a look at 259.
14835 is nothing trivial though.
Oct 12 2016
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 10/12/2016 12:31 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:

 I can take a look at 259.
 14835 is nothing trivial though.


My understanding is Thomas has an attack on 259 once a solution to 14835 
is up. -- Andrei
Oct 12 2016
parent reply tsbockman <thomas.bockman gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 16:36:32 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 10/12/2016 12:31 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:

 I can take a look at 259.
 14835 is nothing trivial though.


 My understanding is Thomas has an attack on 259 once a solution 
 to 14835 is up. -- Andrei


Yes. The path to fix 259 is clear, and Lionello Lunesu and myself 
have already done most of the work.

14835 is a blocker due to the nature of the solution that Walter 
and Andrei approved (which I agree is the right one); an 
independent implementation would run in to the same problem.
Oct 12 2016
parent reply Stefan Koch <uplink.coder googlemail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 22:16:38 UTC, tsbockman wrote:

 On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 16:36:32 UTC, Andrei 
 Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 10/12/2016 12:31 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:

 I can take a look at 259.
 14835 is nothing trivial though.


 My understanding is Thomas has an attack on 259 once a 
 solution to 14835 is up. -- Andrei


 Yes. The path to fix 259 is clear, and Lionello Lunesu and 
 myself have already done most of the work.

 14835 is a blocker due to the nature of the solution that 
 Walter and Andrei approved (which I agree is the right one); an 
 independent implementation would run in to the same problem.


Great news!
Oct 12 2016
parent tsbockman <thomas.bockman gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 22:38:33 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:

 On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 22:16:38 UTC, tsbockman wrote:

 Yes. The path to fix 259 is clear, and Lionello Lunesu and 
 myself have already done most of the work.

 14835 is a blocker due to the nature of the solution that 
 Walter and Andrei approved (which I agree is the right one); 
 an independent implementation would run in to the same problem.


 Great news!


Only if that blocker is dealt with - otherwise it's just wasted 
effort...
Oct 12 2016