On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Tommi <tommitiss...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 1 October 2012 at 22:23:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >> Keywords are considered to be incredibly expensive. Being able to use a >> name >> starting with @ rather than a keyword does reduce the cost, but you're >> still >> going to have to drive a very hard bargain to talk Walter into adding >> anything >> like that to the language at this point. Adding much of _anything_ to the >> language is generally considered expensive. >> > > I'm not sure if you meant the same, but I meant the word "cost" of a > feature as "the amount the feature complicates the language". Also, I'm > only asking people to "buy" this feature in the sense of: "what would you > say about this feature if the language was still back on the drawing board > and nothing had been written down yet". > That is a close to useless exercise (or domain problem). Problems to solve are only interested in a specific domain. In other words the problem as you have defined it will have a different solution in D, C++, Java, vaporware language, etc. To some degree it reminds me of the slew of TCP replacement protocols that academia has designed and implemented that will probably never see the day of light. Don't get me wrong it is educational to read them and implementable in private networks but it is highly probably that the Internet will never see them. Thanks, -Jose
