On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:15:25 +0000 bearophile via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Walter Bright: > > > I have some ideas, but don't particularly like any of them. But > > I don't want to bias things, so what ideas do you guys have? > > In this thread I have seen lot of discussion about the location > of const for struct/class methods, and I agree this is an > interesting topic, but one of the most important points of this > thread regarding DIP69 scope grammar seems too much ignored, that > is the syntax used implementing DIP69 needs to be easy to read, > understand, and remember. Overloading keywords meanings rarely > helps make code easy to understand. Often if you use a different > keyword for a different meaning your language is more easy to > understand. > > Double keywords like "auto ref", "scope ref", "final switch" and > more cause some troubles, and I don't like them. I prefer > keywords like "auto_ref", "scope_ref", "final_switch", etc. oh, please, no! what's wrong with double keywords? ah, except that `shared static this()` is ok and `static shared this()` is not ok, and it has no sane explanation...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
