dsimcha Wrote: > Furthermore, the purpose of language design is to create a usable language > first > and foremost, and then figure out how to specify it formally and abstractly, > not > to create a perfectly bulletproof specification first and foremost and then > hope > that results in a usable language. Again, not saying I particularly like the > MRU > cache idea (it has its issues at an implementation level) but I think that > "perfectly specified" has to take a back seat to "works well in practice".
This might be true at the experimental phase of language design. But I expect more from TDPL, if it's going to be the official definition of the language for the foreseeable future. I'm not expecting it to be as scrupulous as the C++ Standard, but a bit more solid than, "If in doubt, look how it's implemented in DMD--MRU cache and all."
