On 11/30/10 12:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:36:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
I agree that the problem is difficult but disagree with the angle.
This is not the challenge, and it is not only mine to take. To the
extent we're interested in making D a successful language, we're all
on the same boat, so the challenge belongs to us all.
Adding a new type constructor to the language or generally a new
feature is always possible, but has a high cost. Half of the community
throws their hand in the air with each new feature, and the other half
throws them in the air for each feature that could have been. The key
is to navigate such that as many good designs are expressible as
easily as possible.
The real challenge is to solve the problem within the global set of
constraints we have, not to prove that a language feature would solve
it. I know a language feature would take care of the issue, the same
way money would take care of buying a nice house. The challenge is to
have a nice house when money _is_ limited.
IMO opinion, the cost of modifying the language so that a library
solution that half-solves the problem is possible, in order to create a
template that handles all sorts of odd cases is far greater than a new
keyword that would also enable things like tail-const ranges.
I'm not at all convinced. The general issue at stake is creating smart
references. Any inroads into solving that enables entire new classes of
designs. You're saying, forget smart references, let's create a special
smart reference.
To go with your analogy, we own the bank (compiler), we can print our
own money...
And we all know where that takes.
Andrei
