On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 09:24:52 UTC, Michael wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 09:15:52 UTC, Namespace wrote:
I'm against it. More important than such a gimmick are the
many open bugs, auto ref, AA, scope, etc. And don't forget the
implementation of the virtual keyword.
+1
I strongly dislike DIP47, I found many unintended discrepancies
in our C code-base at work... precisely because of "lax rules",
even cases with wrong linkage as result!
"Parameter names need not match."
"If there is a default parameter value, it may only appear in the
member function declaration."
This forces indexing of source and jump to declaration features
in the IDE, the current way is more friendly to simpler
text-editors, the problem which DIP47 is trying to solve is
anyway solved by IDE:s "Class View" feature etc.
i.e.
For people using IDE:s(class view, or ddoc) nothing changes with
DIP47.
For people using plain editors, DIP47 makes it worse.
Even if DIP47 is implemented, I hope this feature is strongly
discouraged in the standard library.
