• victoroak (6/6) Aug 08 2019 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html
• Dukc (16/22) Aug 08 2019 If I understood correctly, the idea is that any file can select
• Dukc (4/15) Aug 08 2019 Forgot to add: If despite the challeges such feature will be made
• SashaGreat (9/15) Aug 08 2019 I talked about exactly this in another thread:
• 12345swordy (5/11) Aug 08 2019 "Make explicit the default, and introduce an implicit keyword"
• Ethan (4/8) Aug 08 2019 Actually, I'll add that to my list of "Things we should break and
• victoroak (3/12) Aug 08 2019 I think @safe by default would be good too. It would help with
• XavierAP (2/8) Aug 08 2019 Interesting!

victoroak <anyone any.com> writes:

https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
about breaking changes and I thought this would be an interesting 
read.

I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
be a way to do it safely.

Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 11:55:16 UTC, victoroak wrote:
 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

 I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
 about breaking changes and I thought this would be an 
 interesting read.

 I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
 be a way to do it safely.

If I understood correctly, the idea is that any file can select 
what version of the language they use? Sounds good IMO, I have 
also thought that it would be cool if I could define -preview and 
-revert switches at module level. For library features, something 
like what Martin Odersky[1] described at DConf2018 might be a 
good base for a DIP.

The problem is defining how this feature would work with 
templates that are defined in different contexts, without runtime 
slowdown. We cannot simply reinstantiate templates for each 
version of the language/library, as that would lead to horrible 
bloat.

And another problem, who would be determined and skilled enough 
to push through a DIP for such a feature? It won't be the easiest 
one.

1: https://dconf.org/2018/talks/odersky.html

Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 13:37:34 UTC, Dukc wrote:
 For library features, something like what Martin Odersky[1] 
 described at DConf2018 might be a good base for a DIP.

 The problem is defining how this feature would work with 
 templates that are defined in different contexts, without 
 runtime slowdown. We cannot simply reinstantiate templates for 
 each version of the language/library, as that would lead to 
 horrible bloat.

 And another problem, who would be determined and skilled enough 
 to push through a DIP for such a feature? It won't be the 
 easiest one.

 1: https://dconf.org/2018/talks/odersky.html

Forgot to add: If despite the challeges such feature will be made 
one day, the potential benefit would be great indeed. For one, 
goodbye autodecoding!

SashaGreat <s g.com> writes:

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 11:55:16 UTC, victoroak wrote:
 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

 I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
 about breaking changes and I thought this would be an 
 interesting read.

 I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
 be a way to do it safely.

I talked about exactly this in another thread: 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/ctvstjuzjayimyxwsugg forum.dlang.org

If I'm not mistaken this was written after Rust decide for 2 ~ 3 
years review of the language, instead of carrying bad design for 
the rest of their lives.

I think if Rust succeeded with their plan, C++ will move in this 
way pretty fast.

Sasha.

12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 11:55:16 UTC, victoroak wrote:
 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

 I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
 about breaking changes and I thought this would be an 
 interesting read.

 I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
 be a way to do it safely.

"Make explicit the default, and introduce an implicit keyword"
Yes dear god, yes! This is what d needs to do when introducing 
implicit conversions.

Alex

Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 15:15:49 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
 "Make explicit the default, and introduce an implicit keyword"
 Yes dear god, yes! This is what d needs to do when introducing 
 implicit conversions.

 Alex

Actually, I'll add that to my list of "Things we should break and 
introduce a new major version with" alongside "const by default" 
and "pure by default".

victoroak <anyone any.com> writes:

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 20:31:46 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 15:15:49 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
 "Make explicit the default, and introduce an implicit keyword"
 Yes dear god, yes! This is what d needs to do when introducing 
 implicit conversions.

 Alex

 Actually, I'll add that to my list of "Things we should break 
 and introduce a new major version with" alongside "const by 
 default" and "pure by default".

I think  safe by default would be good too. It would help with 
attribute bloat.

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 11:55:16 UTC, victoroak wrote:
 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

 I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
 about breaking changes and I thought this would be an 
 interesting read.

 I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
 be a way to do it safely.

Interesting!