Gary Whatmore Wrote: > Fuck no! "precise definition of tuples" is something that always makes me > really grumpy. Do we want a incomprehensible ivory tower language or > something practical? The D's tuples are a bit hazy. A bit harder to grok, but > the good sides are better performance, flexibility and friendliness towards > pragmatic c/c++ mentality. If you want something "better", go use Haskell an > enjoy your 90% slower runtimes.
What is this? "There is no place for improvement because it works." "We don't need documentation because someone who is dedicated to using D can figure it out." Why do we even have D in the first place? Tuples are a mess, we don't have a better solution yet, but that doesn't mean we should stop looking.
