On 22 January 2012 23:34, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org > wrote:
> On 1/22/12 3:18 PM, Manu wrote: > >> On 22 January 2012 18:42, Sean Kelly <s...@invisibleduck.org >> >> <mailto:s...@invisibleduck.org**>> wrote: >> >> The popularity of a language has no bearing on the quality of one of >> its features. Are there other message passing schemes you prefer? >> >> >> As said in the original post, I think receiveOnly() is the most >> intuitive API. I just think that one should be named receive(), and >> perhaps receive() may be renamed receiveMulti(). Surely that would be >> more intuitive to more people? >> > > Names will not change. Why? Surely API's being as intuitive as possible should be a key goal for a standard library? The thing isn't supposed to be stable yet is it? If you take the attitude that no name should ever be changed, then I think there is a problem with the phobos contribution process. Phobos contributions have basically no incubation time/process. I've seen others suggest new stuff should go in exp.xxx to incubate, and it should only be promoted to std after some time, or some successful usage in multiple large-ish projects? It's a shame that basic usability things like that couldn't be caught earlier. Do you disagree that receive() and receiveMulti() (with the crazy var-arg-of-delegates API that nobody would have ever seen in any popular language before) is a far more intuitive approach? C# is awesome because it gets this right. I think that's its single greatest achievement, and can not be understated. Also both Only and Multi varieties should have a Timeout version, and I >> would love to see a poll()/pollMulti() function. >> > > This is sensible. You may want to add functions through pull requests, or > make enhancement requests on bugzilla. > Shall do one or the other.