Lionello Lunesu wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Max Samukha wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:55:57 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
<l...@lunesu.remove.com> wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
Why not go with what C# uses?
class LotterySimulation : Lottery, Figure {
override void Lottery.draw();
override void Figure.draw();
}
Just seems like a more obvious and natural place for it to me. D
already uses this to disambiguate symbols in other places.
I actually like Andrei's suggestion a lot more! It's far more natural:
try reading both versions out loud.
C# uses familiar syntax to qualify the function name. I think it's
natural enough.
Making it look like C# has bad sides too. Explicit overriding in C#
always hides the member from the public view. So this "like C#" can
easily backfire.
According to Andrei's suggestion, the implemented functions are
effectively hidden. You can call them only through the interfaces.
++andreis_suggestion;
I give my vote to C#'s syntax if D can adopt it.
L.
Yah. My take is that if we depart from familiarity, we ought to have a
pretty darn good reason. I didn't know C# has the feature. Since it does
with a reasonable notation, I'd say let's go for it.
Andrei
Be careful with that reasoning. What about attributes? Properties? What
about C# "var" vs. D "auto"? C# "using" vs. D "import"? In fact, what
about the standard library?
I didn't say we need to do what C# does in particular. "auto" and
"import" have precedents in other languages. A standard library is too
large to copy wholesale.
For myself, when learning a new programming language 10% of my time is
spent on learning the language syntax and 90% on learning the standard
library. Learning override(A) B vs. override A.B is NOP.
Then I take it you wouldn't mind override A.B :o).
Andrei
