On 6/12/11 1:59 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu"<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message
news:it1cvf$21d4$1...@digitalmars.com...
It's the namespace pollution and the non-self-containedness of the
function that's most troublesome. Also see Steve's point about methods.
It's just untenable - to use the idiom with a class/struct method, you
need to go all the way _outside_ of it an plant a symbol there.
You can't put an enum in a class/struct?
What I find most interesting is that the lack of strong counterarguments
has not stood in the way of a strong emotional response.
Correction: Andrei's staunch dismissal of all counterarguments has not stood
in the way of a strong emotional response.
This mood has made it difficult for exchange of rational arguments. Funny
thing is, the change is tiny.
"Here, I'll add a handful of yes/no enums here and there in the standard
library, just to help some algorithms. More to come."
"Yeah, sure, whatevs."
"Here, there's a way to define them once so we don't need to define them
everywhere."
Correction: "Here, there's a way to solve a barely-existant problem by
botching up syntax (and error messages) for the user."
"Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
I'm not sure, but I think I see a sarcasm in there.
Andrei
