Le 07/03/2012 04:05, Bill a écrit :
F i L Wrote:I personally find it much easier to remember and use longer, more sentance-like method names. However, Jonathan and others obviously feel more comfortable writing with a high level of abbreviation, which they justify rather well. Still, if D's goal is to gain popularity, I think it should take notices of other rising languages like C#. The problem with making any change to Phobos is backwards compatibility. So, what if there was a way to satisfy both parties and keep backwards compatibility? Is there any compelling reason why simply wrapping Phobos into a different format would be such bad thing? Meaning: // system.io private import std.stdio; alias write Write; alias writeln WriteLine; // etc... Besides keeping things in-sync and error messages referring to the original function names (which could be amended), I don't see why such a library couldn't be written as a way to make the language easier to swallow to potential D users coming from Java/C#. Microsoft used similar tactics with J#/F# to help the Java/Python folks adapt their code to .NET.good idea ! can refer to the java c # naming specification, to work out d own naming specification good luck�� Bill
This is an horrible idea. That make code easier to write, and harder to read. Some language beat D at this game, consider PERL, which is close to write only.
