On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 12:49, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote:
> > So one should be able to see there is interest....unless of course > someone is so bad at basic human empathy, that they can't accept other > people's lived experiences as valid, and will only accept something as > 'good programming practice' if they have invented or experienced it > themselves. > I'm not sure how you intended this to be read, but it comes across as quite aggressive, and doesn't really move the discussion forward. I think Dave's last sentence was much more productive: > So any attributes added in the engine which declare some behavioural change should be limited to those able to provide a tangible benefit which can't be achieved in userland. That is, we can separate two questions: 1) Are there users who will benefit from marking which methods were intended as over-rides, and which weren't? 2) Is there a significant benefit to including it in the engine, rather than in userland? The answer to (1) is probably "yes", based on experience in other languages. The answer to (2) is less clear - the other languages referenced all have mandatory pre-compilation stages which can and do perform static analysis. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
