"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:hod5o3$1nh...@digitalmars.com... > On 03/24/2010 08:28 AM, bearophile wrote: >> As >> they say: "Those who cannot learn from C# are doomed to re-invent it, >> often badly." > > Who are "they"? >
He was modifying the common expression "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it." >> (In D you can solve this problem creating a flags struct, using a >> strategy similar to the one used by std.bitmanip.bitfields, but it >> feels hackish). > > Why does a mechanism that allows creating bitfields, custom enums, flags, > custom-base literals, and more, feel hackish, Because it involves passing everything as parameters to a string-mixin-generating function/template. Powerful as such as thing is, and as much as I like having that ability available, it is a rather blunt instrument and does tend to feel very hackish. Also, looking at the docs for bitmanip, it looks like "bitfields" creates a "BitArray". But the interface for bitarray doesn't really seem to match the conceptual-level operations performed on bitfields any more than just using an ordinary uint would, and it doesn't seem to solve most of the problems with doing so, either. > whereas dumping a wheelbarrow of narrow-usefulness features with every > release Custom bitfields are extremely useful for low-level code. Being a self-proclaimed "systems" language, there's no reason D should consider such a thing to be of "narrow-usefulness". > while still failing to address major problems (concurrency, immutability) > feels not? > I don't think anyone's suggesting that things like concurrency and immutability should fail to be addressed.
