On 08/09/13 22:46, Gary Willoughby wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 17:00:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the
declaration of a member function in the struct/class/union, and
placing the definition of it at global scope in the module or even in
another module.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP47
I'm absolutely against this DIP.
This proposal is just going back to the hell of header files again. Why
on earth would you emulate C/C++ when D was supposed to be designed
taking into account lessons learned from them. This is unnecessary
complexity added for the sake of a few programmers who can't get out of
C++ mode. I think you need to have a good hard think about *why* header
files were introduced into those early languages and then consider if
that reason is still valid. Personally i don't think it is. Java and C#
do just fine without this.
Seriously, this goes against everything you learn as a programmer,
nothing should ever be typed twice and then to say that the declaration
and implementation could be different just boggles my mind?!?! Great
more work!
If implemented, i will never used this feature and i will never deal
with code that uses it either. I choose D *purely* because it didn't
have this header file nonsense. If i find in future i start seeing more
and more of this style of D code i would just move on to use something
else that doesn't have all this extra baggage and work associated with
it. Just because Manu brings it up randomly you decide to create a DIP?
In reality this is a documentation issue. Which has already been
addressed by DDOC or *.di files. If data exists in one form, and it is
needed in another, that's work a computer should do. Not a human! IDE's
also give you numerous tools to get class overviews and such. If you are
suggesting that you also need these class overviews in code to be viewed
on github etc, just use comments. They are as arbitrary and simpler to
implement.
Honestly this DIP is going backwards, i was under the impression D was
going forwards! I am so disappointed.
Well said.
Peter
