On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 13:41:07 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 11:59:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 11:50:08 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
This misunderstanding arose because the name of the construct
is misleading.
Can explain this a bit? What makes one miss distinction
between language term and library type? (Hint: latter is
denoted by CamelCase ;))
Language exists by itself, library feature is composed from
language features and, as it happens often, they can interact
in unexpected/unforseen/broken way.
Take typedef and Typedef for example (bearophile often posts
shortcommings of the latter). Irrespective of whether each of
them is good/bad, this is a clear example of differences
between language feature and library feature.
Personally I am upset when I get some weird Phobos structure
which simulates language feature, rathen then having feature in
the language in first place.
I completely agree with that and would absolutely love to see
tuples of all forms as first class language citizens re-designed
from scratch with more consistency in mind (even made one
proposal back then). But it is simply not an available options
right now. I am not trying to create anything good with this DIP
- just something minimally practical to work with.
But that does not answer the question how one may confuse library
type with matching language feature - I don't remember anyone
confusing the very same typedef / Typedef pair, for example.
