• Martin Nowak (22/22) Nov 04 2011 Moved to an extra thread, so it won't get lost.
• deadalnix (3/25) Nov 04 2011 I would love that ! And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. D
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= (7/29) Nov 04 2011 I hate to sound like a troll, but what we have right now hardly

"Martin Nowak" <dawg dawgfoto.de> writes:

Moved to an extra thread, so it won't get lost.

I propose the following process using the language specifications at  
github:d-programming-language.org.

- The language specifications are made version specific (e.g. 2.6, partly  
handled by tags already).

- Branches are created for the next 2(?) minor versions ahead of the  
current release cycle.
   Another one is created for the next major version.

- The website should have links to specifications for different versions
   which are build from the corresponding tags/branches.

- We adopt a pull based development for the language specification similar
   to that for phobos (review queue, review manager, voting).

- Specs are lined with acceptance tests. Ideally this would be the code  
examples.

- The compiler strives to fulfill the specs on corresponding versions.

- Specs are added to the autotester.

Not sure if github:d-programming-language.org can handle all this  
appropriately,
but it seems worth a try.


As a first test case someone could salvage the abbreviated delegate syntax  
(a => a+2).

martin

deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

Le 04/11/2011 17:10, Martin Nowak a écrit :
 Moved to an extra thread, so it won't get lost.

 I propose the following process using the language specifications at
 github:d-programming-language.org.

 - The language specifications are made version specific (e.g. 2.6,
 partly handled by tags already).

 - Branches are created for the next 2(?) minor versions ahead of the
 current release cycle.
 Another one is created for the next major version.

 - The website should have links to specifications for different versions
 which are build from the corresponding tags/branches.

 - We adopt a pull based development for the language specification similar
 to that for phobos (review queue, review manager, voting).

 - Specs are lined with acceptance tests. Ideally this would be the code
 examples.

 - The compiler strives to fulfill the specs on corresponding versions.

 - Specs are added to the autotester.

 Not sure if github:d-programming-language.org can handle all this
 appropriately,
 but it seems worth a try.


 As a first test case someone could salvage the abbreviated delegate
 syntax (a => a+2).

 martin

I would love that ! And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. D 
definitively needs more specs.

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:

On 04-11-2011 17:10, Martin Nowak wrote:
 Moved to an extra thread, so it won't get lost.

 I propose the following process using the language specifications at
 github:d-programming-language.org.

 - The language specifications are made version specific (e.g. 2.6,
 partly handled by tags already).

 - Branches are created for the next 2(?) minor versions ahead of the
 current release cycle.
 Another one is created for the next major version.

 - The website should have links to specifications for different versions
 which are build from the corresponding tags/branches.

 - We adopt a pull based development for the language specification similar
 to that for phobos (review queue, review manager, voting).

 - Specs are lined with acceptance tests. Ideally this would be the code
 examples.

 - The compiler strives to fulfill the specs on corresponding versions.

 - Specs are added to the autotester.

 Not sure if github:d-programming-language.org can handle all this
 appropriately,
 but it seems worth a try.


 As a first test case someone could salvage the abbreviated delegate
 syntax (a => a+2).

 martin

I hate to sound like a troll, but what we have right now hardly 
qualifies as a language reference. A *real* specification would be much 
more complicated and in-depth. I *do* think we need to develop a better, 
more formal specification, but this will obviously require efforts from 
all the people involved in the development and evolution of D.

- Alex