• Mike Parker (691/691) Jan 05 The D Language Foundation's monthly meeting is normally held on
• monkyyy (3/7) Jan 07 all`y`alls need to publish api experiments; you airnt resolving
• Anonymouse (2/3) Jan 10 As always, thanks!
• Sergey (6/8) Jan 10 As a regular user who still reading changelogs of new versions of

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

The D Language Foundation's monthly meeting is normally held on 
the second Friday of each month, but with some of us traveling 
before DConf, we agreed to have the September meeting on the 6th. 
It lasted about an hour and a half.



The following people attended:

* Walter Bright
* Rikki Cattermole
* Jonathan M. Davis
* Timon Gehr
* Martin Kinkelin
* Dennis Korpel
* Mathias Lang
* Átila Neves
* Razvan Nitu
* Mike Parker
* Robert Schadek
* Steven Schveighoffer
* Adam Wilson





Walter said nobody had wanted to merge the PR for the DMD AArch64 
backend. As such, he'd continued to add changes and it had grown 
enormous and unreviewable, something he'd wanted to avoid. The 
size just discouraged people from reviewing it, and no one had 
shown any interest in doing so. He asked if we could just get it 
merged. He thought merging wouldn't be a problem except for some 
heisenbugs in the test suite that baffled him.

Rikki said that as long as it didn't affect the other target 
triples, we shouldn't be blocking it.

Dennis said we had agreed to merge it in a previous meeting, but 
he had understood that it wouldn't be in the changelog. He had 
asked about that but didn't get an answer. That's where it 
stalled.

Walter didn't see how we could have an 8,000-line PR without a 
changelog entry. People would see it and wonder what the hell it 
was. Dennis said people wouldn't see the source code difference 
when upgrading DMD. Walter countered that developers looking at 
the PRs would see this massive one with no changelog.

Dennis said the changelog entry could be in the PR description. 
It didn't have to be in the public changelog. They were developer 
comments, not user comments. Walter said those were the same 
thing.

Mathias said he'd looked at the PR last week. In the history, 
Dennis had been ready to merge it if the changelog entry was 
removed. Mathias thought that was a simple thing to do. Then when 
it was released, we could add the full documentation and the 
changelog entry. If Walter's interest was just in moving forward, 
removing the changelog entry was the way.

Walter didn't see how that made any sense. We had a procedure: 
change the code, and add a changelog entry. How could we merge an 
8000-line PR without one? The changelog entry explicitly said 
that it was a feature in development. He didn't understand the 
issue with that. There was no documentation anywhere else.

Jonathan said the changelog was on the website to show people 
what had changed in a release. It had nothing to do with what was 
currently in development. Anyone looking at it from a development 
standpoint could look at the commit message. The changelog was 
for end users.

Dennis showed us a comment from the PR thread in which someone 
had complained they didn't want to see the change log littered 
with unfinished features; that's what a TODO list or issue 
tracker was for. I said I'd always seen the changelog as an 
end-user document, not a developer document.

Walter said our policy had always been that if there was a 
significant change, it should have a changelog entry. Jonathan 
said that was for things end users would see. In this case, they 
wouldn't see it at all. It would be behind an undocumented switch.

Walter said he was clearly alone in his position, so he'd remove 
the changelog entry.

(__UPDATE:__ Walter made the requested change and the PR was 
merged.)



Rikki said that Hipreme needed to get information from the 
compiler to optimize builds in redub. We had the `-deps` switch, 
but it gave more information than was needed and wasn't in an 
easily consumable format like JSON. Then there was the question 
of what kind of metadata we wanted in it. For example, 
`pragma(lib)` didn't necessarily survive multiple invocations of 
the compiler and the linker.

Although this was mostly solved, and we could do PRs for 
`pragma(lib)`, JSON, and whatever we wanted, we needed to also 
think about telling build managers about the compiler 
configuration. Where was the config file? What triples were 
supported? Where were the static and shared libraries? What were 
the default linker flags? And so on.

He thought it would be nice to come up with the requirements for 
the extra information and add it to `-deps`.

Átila said that, having written a build system for D, he wondered 
why any of that was required. Rikki asked what would happen if 
you wanted to link with GCC instead of LDC. In that case, you 
wouldn't know where the static and shared libraries were. Were 
any linker flags used?

Átila didn't know why we needed that information from the 
compiler given that we could do that right now. Rikki said it was 
because we had to make assumptions. The libraries, for example, 
could be anywhere on the system.

Martin said LDC had that problem. They could link LDC itself via 
the C++ compiler. They figured out the location of DRuntime and 
Phobos for all of the supported host compilers by running a dummy 
link process with `-v` and parsing the linker command line flag. 
It was ugly, but as far as he knew this was the status quo for 
all of the existing compilers, at least for system programming 
languages, where the build system had to come up with profiles. 
Like CMake, for example. Dummy compiles made it very slow to 
check whether the compiler supported a specific command-line flag.

Maybe some things could be extended there, but he was very 
skeptical that we needed it. His main use case for a build system 
was using one that wasn't tied to a specific language. If his 
build system had to support C and C++ anyway, because he wanted 
to link his D code to C and C++ code, it needed care about all 
the C and C++ compiler ugliness, too. He thought implementing it 
would be a low return on investment. Átila agreed.

Rikki said that right now it printed out a subset of the AST. If 
you wanted to look at, e.g., imports, it didn't see function 
bodies or go into stuff like that. It wasn't a complete solution. 
We had subsets of the problem solved, but not a nice user 
experience, or a good story to tell people.

Martin said that was build-system internals. He wouldn't say it 
was users interested in such information, only build systems. 
Existing build systems already had hacks for it from dealing with 
C++ compilers. Rikki agreed, but said you called the C++ compiler 
to do the link, and you couldn't necessarily do that with D.

Martin said, to give an idea, they couldn't use the ld linker 
directly. They had to use the C compiler because it knew where 
the C runtime libraries were located; the start object files, 
termination object files, all of that. It was easy on Windows, 
not on POSIX. We already couldn't call the linker directly, so 
Rikki's comparison in D with DRuntime and Phobos didn't hold, 
because we needed those additionally on top of all the C stuff.

Rikki said that still left finding runtime sources, IDE 
installations, or just having it auto configure. He added that 
DUB's platform probe wasn't the fastest thing in the world either.

Átila said we'd be better off optimizing that than going the 
other way. We already had IDEs getting DUB information. He'd 
written this stuff already, and most people were using DUB. If he 
opened a file in a DUB project, things worked. The import path 
was set, he didn't have to do anything.

Rikki said there were a lot of assumptions in place with the 
IntelliJ plugin. It had hardcoded source paths for different 
distros. Átila said that wasn't good.

Rikki said it could be anywhere on the file system, and it 
changed based on the distro and installation method. It would be 
nice to have a reliable method for it. Martin agreed, but again 
questioned the return on investment. He thought it would be 
extremely, extremely, extremely low.

Dennis said this was a tooling feature, not a language feature. 
In that light, we had discussed before that the JSON output was 
designed to be useful. If there were uses for more information, 
and it would make toolmakers happy getting it through the 
compiler even if there were other ways to get it, then he didn't 
see a problem with it. The worst case scenario was that they 
ended up not needing it.

Átila said that as one of those people, he'd gotten everything he 
wanted when `make deps` was fixed.

Martin said as an example that the compiler had no idea where 
DRuntime and Phobos files were. The only thing done on that front 
was an implicit default `-i` in the LDC config file. But the user 
could override that with a custom subset of the DRuntime and 
Phobos files and the compiler wouldn't know. Not even the 
directory where the libraries were taken from. Depending on the 
command, you could specify multiple libraries, 32-bit and 64-bit, 
and the linker would use the correct directory, all stuff the 
compiler didn't know about.

Dennis pointed out that Rikki had mentioned `pragma(lib)`. So if 
someone had `pragma(lib, gdi32.lib)` to make their code compile 
on Windows, it would only work if the compiler invoked the linker.

Martin said that was not correct. He wasn't sure about DMD, but 
he thought it was the same as LDC. Linker comments could be 
embedded in object files. So in this case, it was baked into the 
object file. As soon as the linker saw the linker directive, then 
`gdi32.lib` would be pulled into the link. The compiler didn't 
need to do anything. That's how it worked on Windows, but on 
POSIX it only worked with LD. It wasn't standardized.

Rikki said it sounded like it wasn't something we wanted to spend 
time on, but it could be left as an enhancement request that 
anyone willing to work on could pick up. No one objected.



I reported that the SAOC judges had accepted three projects this 
year and that I had notified the successful applicants. We had 
one project to replace libdparse in dscanner with 
DMD-as-a-library, one for Razvan's ongoing project to separate 
semantic routines from AST nodes in the compiler, and one to 
improve D error messages.



Adam said that a discussion about some technical details of the 
Phobos 3 design had come up in Phobos yesterday. Someone had 
suggested getting rid of ` nogc`. That brought up a broader 
question about what Phobos 3 should be. Some people wanted what 
we might call a systems standard library: a few building blocks 
that they might use to implement emitting stuff to a console or a 
file and not much else, where we'd want ` nogc` and `nothrow`. 
Other people wanted more of an applications programming library 
where we used the GC and allowed throwing.

He said this had been the perennial debate about Phobos, and he 
was trying to figure out what to do.

Exceptions were one case that had been discussed. He said Paul 
Backus had an idea for a layered approach and had used the 
example of `std.conv.to`. We could make a ` nogc nothrow` version 
that did no allocation and returned an optional type, then we'd 
put a throwing, allocating wrapper around it. It would read the 
optional type and then allocate and throw in the case of failure. 
That was all that `std.conv.to` did, so that was fine here. But 
there would be places where Adam didn't think we could have two 
layers like that.

We needed to answer the big-picture question: were we going to be 
a systems library or an application programming library? That had 
been vexing him since he started on this project.

I pointed out that this was Tango vs. Phobos all over again, so 
we definitely needed a solution for this.

Átila verified with Adam and Jonathan that exceptions were not 
the only allocations in Phobos. He said we should handle other 
allocations differently. We should try to do what Walter did when 
he eliminated some of the allocations from Phobos. There was no 
reason to allocate unless it was absolutely needed, especially 
when the user could do it, like when using ranges and adding 
`.array` at the end.

He thought the guiding philosophy for allocations should be 
"don't". Let the user choose when to do it. He gave the example 
of lists in Python. People allocated those a lot, but often they 
didn't really need to because they weren't storing them anywhere, 
just using them somewhere else in the pipeline.

Walter said that Phobos shouldn't be allocating memory where it 
didn't have to, a point he'd made in his DConf '23 talk. In the 
cases where allocation couldn't be avoided, we should just accept 
a user allocator. Then the perennial debate of GC or no GC, throw 
or don't throw, would be a user decision. We were never going to 
resolve the question of the correct way to allocate memory. The 
only solution was to let the user decide.

There were several options for how a user could handle an error. 
Did they want to print an error message? Did they want to throw? 
That should be their decision, not the library's. Letting the 
user decide how to allocate and how to handle errors would make 
Phobos a more flexible library. That may not be possible in all 
cases, but he thought that between all of us we could come up 
with a way to allow the user to do it in an attractive manner.

He'd switched to this model in his own programming and found it 
very nice. For example, his ARM disassembler didn't call `printf` 
internally for output. It put all the output in an output range 
and the caller decided what to do with it. Generic functions in 
Phobos should be doing the same. The compiler was now doing it, 
running error messages through an abstract interface. That had 
turned out to be a very positive change, because you could do 
whatever you wanted with the error messages, including ignore 
them. That fit right in with DMD-as-a-library.

He said it might be difficult to make it work in all cases, but 
with the brain power of our collective community, we could figure 
out ways to do it.

Dennis said he considered console output and integer-to-string 
conversion so elementary and ubiquitous that they should probably 
even be in the runtime. At the very least there should be ` nogc 
nothrow` versions. But most of the batteries-included stuff used 
in application code, like a JSON parser or big integer type, 
could use whatever was convenient, like the GC. Anyone needing 
specialized versions of those would use a specialized library 
anyway. For example, Phobos had a transform function, but audio 
programmers used a specialized library like dplug.

Jonathan agreed that range-based stuff generally didn't need to 
allocate. There were cases with exceptions where it made more 
sense to return something instead of throwing. But for most of 
this stuff, he thought it should be handled on a case-by-case 
basis. For something like, e.g., an XML parser, he would never 
want to write one that did anything other than throw. It was just 
cleaner at that point to allocate. He cited dxml as an example. 
For most stuff, it just returned slices of whatever you gave it, 
so it didn't allocate except when it needed to throw an exception.

Even when it was necessary to return a string, we were typically 
able to overload an allocating function with one that takes an 
output buffer to avoid the allocations. We had tools to avoid 
allocating and should be using them heavily where it made sense. 
But it had to be done on a case-by-case basis.

Robert agreed. If we had an XML parser that required passing in 
an allocator, he was just going to write his own XML parser. 
Another thing to consider was that safe-by-default would be a 
very hard sell if we were requiring people to pass allocators 
around. Users would wonder why their program in this 
safe-by-default language was no longer ` safe` just because they 
passed an allocator to a function.

On a more abstract level, the default for a Python programmer 
dipping their toes into D and Phobos should be stupidly simple 
and ` safe`. If you were two years into your D journey and knew 
about chaining ranges, then there should be options for you, and 
maybe those options would be to build the thing that allocates 
and throws. But the surface that people see should be stupidly 
simple. That was one of the reasons he fell in love with D. 
Requiring users to pass in allocators made it feel like C++.

Walter agreed and suggested that the stupid simple interface 
could be a layer on top of Phobos that handled the allocator for 
you and passed it to the engine underneath. Robert agreed that 
could be possible for some things, but for others, like parsing 
XML and JSON, it might be extremely difficult. At some point, it 
had to be a judgment call.

Rikki said that we sometimes had that nice split where we could 
have a buffer or allocator at the low level and a wrapper that 
allocated above it. Other times, like with something using system 
handles, it should always be reference counted because cleanup 
needed to be deterministic. You could run out of handles and 
crash your program.

As for throwing, with libraries you really wanted to catch 
exceptions close to the call. You didn't want them to escape the 
thread. But for a framework, you *did* want that. There were 
different mechanisms there: value type exceptions and the runtime 
unwinding mechanism. They weren't the same thing.

Martin said that Robert's point was very important to him as 
well. And it wasn't just about making the interface easy, but 
also about documentation. He really hated all the implementation 
details in the C++ docs, like template parameters. If he was 
looking at something for the first time, he was just interested 
in the functionality. He didn't care about an allocator template 
parameter. Moreover, it was bad for compile times if you needed 
to templatize everything just for the allocator.

He then went back to the point about using wrappers that returned 
some kind of optional or result type. In his experience, that 
kind of thing propagated like cancer. The LLVM code base had 
stuff like that to avoid throwing exceptions. It was extremely 
ugly.

As an example, he postulated a wrapper function called 
`tryUpdateFile` that read a file, did some work, and wrote to a 
file. It would be `nothrow`. Internally, it would need to use 
`tryReadFile` rather than `readFile`, which might throw, and the 
equivalent `tryWriteFile`. Then the cancer problem came in 
dealing with the ugly result types those `try*` functions 
returned. There was probably no easy way to deal with the 
multiple different exceptions that were possible, but they'd need 
to be taken care of somehow, and that was going to be extremely 
ugly.

He preferred exceptions for this stuff. They were perfect for 
exceptional cases. Having to use an allocator just to allocate 
exceptions would be ugly, too. DIP 1008 had tried to tackle this 
problem. We could have other options, like reformulating the 
semantics to allow GC invocations for `throw` expressions. He was 
just very skeptical about the wrapper functions.

Razvan said there had been comments from some D users that D 
didn't know what it wanted to be. He was getting that feeling 
listening to this discussion. We had GC and we had exceptions, 
but now we wanted to jump through all these hoops to offer 100% 
flexibility. He found that weird.

Even when he'd first started contributing to Phobos, there were 
some functions with several parameters to configure if an 
exception should be thrown and other stuff. It was super 
confusing. He just wanted to use the function to do something. He 
didn't care about exceptions and allocators.

 From his perspective, if we had GC and exceptions, we should be 
using them. He believed other use cases were niche. He knew there 
were people out there who wanted to aoid them, and they would 
make a fuss about it. In that case, maybe we should have a 
third-party `nothrow  nogc` library they could use.

GC was embedded in the language. Razvan felt if we tried to solve 
all the use cases, we'd end up with a terrible standard library.

Rikki pointed out that the big problem people had with exceptions 
was that stack unwinding forced allocations. With value-type 
exceptions, it would all be purely on the stack. It could be as 
cheap as a single tag value, an integer. It would force you to 
catch it close to where it was called, but it solved all the 
problems we had with exceptions. The only thing holding us up on 
that was sumtypes.

Steve circled back to the Discord discussion Adam mentioned. The 
question that had brought this up was why string to integer 
couldn't be ` nogc`. He thought that was a good question, as it 
was an operation that shouldn't need to allocate. The answer, of 
course, was that it might need to allocate an exception if the 
string didn't contain an integer. We could respond by making a 
version that didn't allocate, but we'd still need a mechanism to 
deal with failure.

He didn't see a problem with having two versions of 
string-to-integer, one that throws an exception and one that 
otherwise indicates an error and lets the user handle it in a 
different way. That didn't seem like it would cause huge problems 
with most code bases. He understood Martin's point that composing 
everything into different versions could become viral, but Steve 
didn't see how we couldn't have a string-to-integer function that 
didn't throw.

Regarding allocators, he'd never liked the way we handled them. 
There'd always been the problem that the GC flavor of an 
allocator didn't need to deallocate. With all other allocators, 
you needed to deallocate explicitly. That changed the way you 
wrote the code. He didn't want to poison the whole Phobos API 
with allocators because it meant more things to worry about in 
the implementation, whereas when using the GC you just allocated 
and that was it.

In his view, we should be using the GC for allocations. If 
someone didn't want allocations, they could provide a buffer. 
Finished.

Timon thought it would be weird to change the interface from one 
that was exception-based to one based on explicit sumtypes just 
because exceptions allocated. He thought the right idea was to 
put the blame for exception allocation on any caller that caught 
the exception and then leaked it. In any other case, there was no 
reason to keep the exception on the GC heap: it was allocated, 
the stack was unwound, the exception was parsed once to take an 
action, and then it was thrown away. It didn't make sense to him 
that we would have a `nothrow` version just because throwing an 
exception allocated with the GC. There should be a different 
solution for this.

He added that if you wanted implicitly unrolling error handling, 
then exceptions were the way to go. If you didn't like the 
unwinding itself, then maybe DMD could have an option to 
implicitly unwind the stack without unwinding the stack by just 
returning some error flags. It might be useful for porting to new 
platforms before stack unwinding was implemented.

In general, Timon thought that if you wanted a `nothrow` 
interface, then it should be about wanting explicit control flow 
and not about the GC.

Martin said that he'd been thinking about a kind of weak ` nogc` 
that allowed GC allocations only in throw expressions. That might 
go a long way. We could give ` nogc` the new semantics in a new 
edition, and then add something like `nothrowpure` that really 
makes sure nothing escapes and nothing throws.

As for performance concerns, he'd heard this way too often. Why 
did anyone care about unwinding performance? Exceptions were 
meant to be used in exceptional circumstances. He didn't care at 
all about the performance of an unwind. He wasn't going to be 
throwing a million exceptions per second. And when it came to 
value-type exceptions, you could escape exceptions as soon as you 
caught them, so it wasn't like all of them were thrown away 
immediately after or during the unwind. Performance concerns in 
his view were completely invalid.

Walter agreed that exception performance was not an issue.

Jonathan said he didn't care about the implementation details, 
whether GC was used or not, as long as exceptions worked the way 
they currently did. If someone could come up with a better 
approach, he didn't care. But there were cases when you had to 
store a caught exception somewhere and couldn't assume they'd be 
deallocated. It was also common to allocate stuff to put into the 
exception.

Then there was the case of needing to catch an exception and pass 
it to another thread. He believed with our thread stuff, when a 
thread was killed by an exception, it would throw it on another 
thread when the join happened. So trying to free the exception at 
the catch site wouldn't work at that point.

This made him nervous about wanting to avoid GC-allocating 
exceptions by ref-counting them or something like that. He felt 
that the people freaking out over it were people who refused to 
use the GC anyway. They wouldn't be happy no matter what we did 
unless we didn't use the GC at all, and that would be miserable.

Though he was all for avoiding allocations where reasonable, it 
would be cleaner to allocate and throw. If you didn't like that, 
then you could avoid that part of the library and do your own 
thing for your more restrictive use cases. We should be smarter 
about allocations, but it should be on a case-by-case basis. 
Avoiding GC just to avoid GC would make for a miserable user 
experience.

Walter cited `std.path` as an example. He had rewritten it to 
avoid allocations, but to the user the functionality and 
interface hadn't changed.

Jonathan said a lot of range-based stuff could do that. Yes, 
there were some issues with delegates, but for a lot of 
range-based stuff there was no need for allocations. We had some 
really good tools to reduce allocations and we should use them, 
but we wanted something that was usable, and that sometimes meant 
allocating.

Rikki said that not all exceptions had the same pattern. Some 
were caught really close to where they were thrown, others killed 
the process. They weren't the same. A different mechanism was 
appropriate for each. We should recognize that relying on one 
solution wasn't scaling to the full scope.

Given how often people derived from the `Exception` class, he 
thought that a lot of times what they really wanted was just to 
throw a unique identifier. We needed a completely different 
mechanism for that.

He emphasized that we should be using the right tool for the 
right job, whatever that might be. For example, system handles 
ought to be reference counted, not GC-allocated, but business 
logic absolutely should use the GC so that the logic didn't have 
to worry about memory management. We needed to pick scalable 
solutions based on the use cases rather than picking one for 
everyone.

Timon said that an issue with letting the exceptional path be 
slow was that the library function didn't know the user's use 
case. The use case might be, "If this data is valid according to 
this rule set, then parse it." In that case, validating and 
parsing at the same time is more efficient. Then you were kind of 
left in a position where you did need to provide two versions, 
and he didn't know if that was a good place to be in.

Mathias agreed that was true in some cases. He gave the example 
of a file-removing function. You wanted to ensure that the file 
wasn't there, in which case you didn't want an exception thrown 
if the file didn't exist. So in cases like that, it made sense to 
wrap a non-throwing function with a throwing one.

But he also agreed with Razvan and Jonathan. We had to have an 
identity. We were a very versatile language, but Phobos couldn't 
cover every use case. Every choice we made in the interface would 
bubble up when we tried to compose. That wasn't scalable. So 
people who wanted to use ` nogc` on their `main` wouldn't use 
Phobos. They'd have their own runtime.

Supporting ` nogc` on `main` shouldn't be in scope for us. The 
main use for ` nogc` was to ensure a function didn't allocate. 
For him, it was about avoiding allocations on the hot path. He 
went back to Steve's motivation for bringing this up, that people 
were complaining about string to int allocating. It couldn't be 
` nogc` because it might allocate, not because it always did. And 
the complaints probably came because people were using it in a 
` nogc` context.

He said it felt like a self-inflicted thing. We've added 
attributes that weren't really that good, that didn't really 
match our identity, and now we had a tempest.

Steve said it was true that string to int didn't allocate. The 
problem was you didn't always know if a string had an integer in 
it. The only way to be sure was to try the conversion and see if 
it failed. But failure meant catching an exception when we could 
instead be handing back an error code. For something that small, 
he could understand not wanting to deal with exceptions.

When it was something big like XML, then yeah, maybe you had to 
do exceptions. But for small stuff like string to int, it made no 
sense to have that level of complexity.

He brought up Walter's earlier point about calling an error 
handler so the user could decide what to do. What would you do at 
that point in the parsing if an exception wasn't thrown by the 
handler? Dennis jokingly suggested returning `int.min`. Steve 
said you had to do something, but inside the parser, it wasn't 
going to work.

Mathias said that was a good example of where we should expose a 
function that didn't error out. The big question for him was, how 
would we provide rich error information for that kind of function 
if we didn't have a `try` wrapper for it? He disagreed with 
Rikki's point that most of the time you really wanted a unique 
identifier. For him, a really useful thing about exceptions was 
that you could provide information as rich as you wanted. You 
could say, for example, which field of a struct couldn't be read 
and what its value was. That usually meant allocating.

Robert asked what would happen if the value he wanted to parse 
was `int.min`. What return code would you use then? What about 
`float.nan` for floats? He didn't want to have to pass a `bool` 
as an out parameter, or a sumtype with both a `bool` and the 
value, and have to check if it's `true` after the function call. 
Although it seemed simple on the surface, the closer you looked, 
the more you realized it wasn't so simple.

He said the TL;DR here was, "It depends." As Átila liked to say, 
"You have to think." Even if it was painful. We had to think for 
each and every function, "Can this thing throw?". If the answer 
was "yes", then it couldn't be `nothrow`. Or we had to provide an 
interface through which you could pass something where the 
exception information could be stored.

Átila suggested we take Martin's idea of having the `throw` 
expression be exempt from ` nogc` and add a compiler flag to make 
it non-exempt for those who wanted it. Steve pointed out that 
throwing didn't use the GC. It used to, but it no longer did. It 
was `new Exception` that was the problem. Átila understood, but 
the idea was that anything following `throw` in the expression 
could still allocate, e.g., `throw new Exception`. Martin agreed 
and said it wasn't just about the exception itself, but mostly 
about the string messages, many of which needed to format stuff.

Timon interjected that he thought it was a bad idea to have a 
string message in the base `Exception` class, because when did 
you really need to eagerly format an exception string?

Adam said he had been taking notes and had some comments.

Regarding error sink parameters, this got at the heart of a 
design issue that was always vexing. Did we want the library 
interface to be simple and easily accessible to newcomers? Error 
sinks were kind of antithetical to that.

Another question: how easy were they to ignore? A new person 
might come in and just throw something to shut the compiler up 
and ignore the actual error. Then we'd get all kinds of questions 
about why their code was erroring out.

He thought we could make something that was super flexible, but 
it would end up being for the kind of people that were currently 
on his screen, people who knew D so well they dreamed in it. We 
shouldn't do that.

He said this went back to what Razvan said about identity. What 
was Phobos trying to be to people? We should of course try to 
avoid allocating where possible, but if you were writing ` nogc 
nothrow` code and needed that level of performance, you were 
probably going to be doing stuff on your own anyway. Was that 
really something we wanted in a standard library trying to cover 
the broadest possible use cases? That was kind of a specialized 
demand.

He said the ` nogc` stuff seemed to mostly revolve around 
exceptions anyway. He thought Martin and Átila had really hit on 
something interesting in asking how much we really care about 
performance and GC inside `throw`. If we went the "weak nogc" 
route, he thought we'd find a lot of complaints about GC in 
Phobos would disappear. Then we'd get a much better read on how 
much people actually cared. He had a feeling we'd get to the 
point where we would say that we just weren't going to provide a 
lot of flexibility for ` nogc` code.

He thought Steve's point about GC being incompatible with 
allocators was a great one. Paul Backus had said in the Discord 
he'd rather see us get rid of allocators and just go with the GC 
in Phobos. If somebody needed to do funky allocations, they'd 
need to write their own stuff anyway.

Steve said he took Adam's point. Advanced users who cared about 
low-level things probably weren't going to be using the 
exception-throwing stuff. But it was probably pretty annoying to 
use a language in which you couldn't convert a string to an 
integer without a catch block unless you wrote your own.

Adam said he agreed with that. There were some cases where it 
made sense to have a fundamental function that we then wrapped, 
e.g., `to` and `tryTo`. We could have e.g., a `phobos.sys` module 
for the low-level stuff. Like Martin said, that could get 
interesting, so we'd need to be careful with it. But then there 
were cases where that wouldn't be feasible, like `phobos.data` 
where we would have all the parsers. In that case, there would be 
GC and exceptions.

Mathias said that all the companies he had worked for using D had 
cared about performance and still used the GC. At Sociomantic 
they had used and thrown exceptions. They were simply careful 
about it and they never had a problem. There were a few tricks 
they used, like pre-allocated exceptions or exceptions that had 
an internal buffer. That was why they introduced the `message` 
function in `Exception`. They couldn't use the `msg` property. So 
no one could tell him that the exceptions weren't performant 
enough or that the GC couldn't be used in a high-performance 
context. It wasn't true.

Walter said that there needed to be one low-level string to 
integer conversion that didn't allocate and was focused on high 
speed, and then we could write a user-friendly one that called 
it. That should be fine.

Martin said Adam's idea about hiding the implementation details 
in a separate module or package was a good one on a case-by-case 
basis. We could have building blocks that didn't pollute the main 
modules and would allow us to keep the documentation and the 
interface simple. Then for advanced use cases, people could use 
the building blocks directly. But then string to integer 
conversion was something for which it wouldn't be nice to import 
the building block stuff. In that case, it made sense to have two 
functions in the main interface.

Adam said that was a longer discussion that had started back when 
he had asked about what should be in DRuntime and what should be 
in Phobos. He thought we were heading to a place where we would 
have a separate layer where these lower-level functions existed. 
We might even consider making it a separate library. We could 
tell the ` nogc` folks, "Okay, here's your walled garden over 
here." And then Phobos could build on top of that.

This came back to determining the split between Phobos and 
DRuntime because some of this stuff would have to be in the 
runtime. Maybe this new layer would be a library between Phobos 
and DRuntime.

Walter said he was fine with the building-block approach. The 
bottom level should be ` nogc nothrow` and all the nice, 
user-friendly stuff should be on top of that, probably in Phobos. 
Because if you didn't have a low-level, high-speed function, 
users would always write their own. We shouldn't be doing that. 
Put the low-level stuff in the runtime. If you wanted the simple, 
uncomplicated things, Phobos was where you should be looking.

Rikki wanted to know why the non-allocating, non-throwing, 
high-speed stuff should be in the runtime. Why couldn't it be 
below that, like at the BetterC level? Walter said that BetterC 
was designed to only depend on the C runtime library. That wasn't 
part of this.

Martin clarified that Rikki was suggesting a kind of 
stripped-down runtime library apart from DRuntime which was 
usable in BetterC. Átila reminded us that he'd said many times 
that BetterC should be implicit. Martin said that was what he was 
getting at. Ideally, we'd have a runtime that was properly 
structured in terms of object granularity so that, e.g., we'd 
have the string to integer parsing in a standalone object file 
without any further dependencies so that it could then be linked 
into BetterC. If this were the only thing we needed, then we 
could just link in that object file and be done with it. 
Currently, we had `ModuleInfo` and all that stuff, but ideally, 
this would be taken care of by a properly structured runtime.

Átila said that should come out as a result of not using features 
to begin with. It should be pay-as-you-go. If you didn't use 
something, you didn't pay for it. It shouldn't have to be 
anything the user selected. It should just work. And then BetterC 
would be implicit.

I suggested that we should just document that BetterC was created 
to facilitate porting C code to D and integrating D code into C, 
which was the motivating use case for it. We didn't have to 
support anything beyond that. If you wanted to use BetterC to 
write your game or whatever, that was on you. We shouldn't have 
anything to do with that. We should just document it and leave it 
there.

Rikki said his point about the extra library wasn't just about 
BetterC. The idea was that if it didn't depend on anything 
platform-specific or anything in DRuntime, then why not separate 
it out? It would be BetterC as a consequence and wouldn't need 
the switch. It would be pay-as-you-go.

Martin said they only disagreed on the idea that it needed to be 
split out. He emphasized that if the object file granularity were 
taken into account, we wouldn't have these issues. We wouldn't 
need to split the runtime. It would be implicit and 
pay-as-you-go. Someone would need to do the work of going through 
each module and determining if the object file granularity was 
fine or if decoupling was needed. That would be a tedious task.

Walter said another way to do that would be to take an ordinary 
function and convert it to a template. Then you didn't need to 
link a separate library to use it. Rikki said he'd asked for 
`core.int128` to be all templated and Walter had turned him down. 
Walter said he hadn't been thinking about it being used from 
BetterC at the time.

I asked Adam if he was in a better place than he'd been at the 
start. He said he was. We still needed to debate some of this 
stuff, like whether we should have a separate lower-level library 
in the stack and where it should go. But he was happy with the 
notes he had now.



Our next meeting was a quarterly meeting on Friday, October 4th. 
Our next monthly took place on Friday, October 11th.

If you have something you'd like to discuss with us in one of our 
monthly meetings, feel free to reach out to me and let me know.

monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 6 January 2025 at 06:10:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 Phobos 3 design
 nogc
 allocators
 conv redesign

all`y`alls need to publish api experiments; you airnt resolving 
the allocator debate with another year of talking

Anonymouse <zorael gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 6 January 2025 at 06:10:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 [...]

As always, thanks!

Sergey <kornburn yandex.ru> writes:

On Monday, 6 January 2025 at 06:10:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 Walter said he was clearly alone in his position, so he'd 
 remove the changelog entry.

As a regular user who still reading changelogs of new versions of 
compiler can confirm - I would assume to have only implemented 
features to be presented in this list.
As a user I don't care about not ready/WIP code to be mentioned 
over there