On 4/30/12 5:15 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Honestly, I don't think that you _can_ take much from this thread
other than
I don't agree, I see some recurring patterns.
People have spent energy and time to write lot of answers in this
thread, some good answer bits too, so I expect such work to not let be
fully wasted. Asking for opinions, receiving lot of them, and then
ignoring them all is not a good way to run a community.
It's a bit inappropriate to bind Walter to such a social contract upon
having asked an informal question. Besides, if we're talking about work
of writing posts we should also consider the considerable work of
reading certain posts, which are so patronizing as to make reading an
exercise in eye rolling.
And thank you for your answer, I always appreciate your answers, but you
aren't Walter, that post was for him (and Andrei) to answer :-)
FWIW there is little agreement among answers. Eliminating today's
semantics of comma inevitably underlies the hope that it can be
retrofitted for something else, which I think is near impossible without
changing semantics of working code. Then there's a lot of busywork.
Eliminating e.g. "with" is going to leave things pretty much where they
are with the note some innocently bystanding programs are going to break.
One feature to remove stands out - the struct initialization:
struct S { int x, y; }
S s = { 1, 2 };
This, was noted, makes the order of members effectively part of the
struct's interface, which is subtly dangerous. I think we should remove
this feature.
Andrei
