Vladimir Panteleev: > Forcing a code repository is bad.
In this case I was not suggesting to force things :-) But having a place to find reliable modules is very good. > This is not practical. It works in Python, Ruby and often in Perl too, so I don't agree. > I assume you mean naming conventions and not actual code style (indentation > etc.) I meant that D code written by different people is better looking similar, where possible. C/C++ programmers have too much freedom where freedom is not necessary. Reducing some of such useless freedom helps improve the code ecosystem. > - Probably D the package system needs to be improved. Some Java people > are even talking about introducing means to create superpackages. Some > module system theory from ML-like languages may help here. > Why? - Currently D packages are not working well yet, there are bug reports on this. - Something higher level than packages is useful when you build very large systems. - Module system theory from ML-like languages shows many years old ideas that otherwise will need to be painfully re-invented half-broken by D language developers. Sometimes wasting three days reading saves you some years of pain. > I don't think this is practical until someone writes a D interpreter. CTFE interpter is already there :-) > How would DMD become even more IDE-friendly that it already is? - error messages that give column number - folding annotations? - less usage of string mixins and more on delegates and normal D code - More introspection - etc > I have to agree that named arguments are awesome, they make the code much > more readable and maintainable in many instances.< I haven not already written an enhancement request on this because until few weeks ago I have thought that named arguments improve the usage of functions with many arguments, so they may encourage D programmers to create more functions like this from Windows API: HWND CreateWindow( LPCTSTR lpClassName, LPCTSTR lpWindowName,DWORD style,int x, int y, int width, int height, HWND hWndParent,HMENU hMenu,HANDLE hInstance,LPVOID lpParam); but lately I have understood that this is not the whole truth, named arguments are useful even when your functions have just 3 arguments. They make code more readable in both little script-like programs, and help avoid some mistakes in larger programs too. Bye, bearophile
