On 6/10/11 7:04 PM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
Design decisions are always taken in a context,
Right. But wasn't your comment about Scala named arguments complexity
too out of context?
What I did was to say that Don's and others' point, corroborated with
the fact that Scala found it necessary to add that feature to the
language, suggests that we need to worry about that.
But at this point it is a necessity that we start migrating our
mindset from an endless wishlist - towards finding ingenious
solutions within the language.
There are few basic features that are missing that are better as
built-ins, even now. Tuple unpacking syntax sugar, named arguments,
computed gotos, and few other smaller things. Do you want to freeze D
language to D2 and not take a look at ideas for D3?
Falling for either extreme would be a mistake.
and I am a bit disappointed that a few posters have shown only
contempt for such an effort.
You need to take a better look at the kind of people that are in this
forum. People here are walking away from C++, Java (and even Python),
looking for a feature-rich language that avoids some of the syntax
kludges their former languages force them to use in their programs.
I'd love to see more evidence to this claim.
So it's not so strange that people in this forum have on average a
significantly lower tolerance to tricks like your Flag proposal. In a
C++ forum your Flag idea probably is much more welcome, because
compared to D programmers probably C++ programmers accept a higher
level of noise and ugliness in their code :-)
I don't think that's the reason. You should have seen the C++ forums up
until about 1997. They were brimming with enthusiastic proposals for
language changes. Interesting work became possible after it became clear
to everyone that the language is now given, so it's time to use what's
there. D, too, is receiving an increasing amount of real work from the
community since TDPL's publication.
What's wrong with myTuple.expand?
It does nothing of what I need? Haven't we had this discussion
already? I am having a huge deja-vu :-) I have discussed this topic
several times already. Didn't you agree about the need of unpacking
syntax sugar for tuples? I am confused
now..................................
I must be the one confused, but at best we shouldn't spread ourselves
too thin.
Andrei
