bearophile wrote:
Sönke Ludwig:
BTW: I was not really watching the newsgroups lately and just
noticed the DIP2/inout implementation. IMO 'inout' is really not a
good choice for the keyword, introducing a backwards
imcompatibility, changing the meaning of a de-facto standard
keyword (IDL etc) and not really hitting the point (placeholder for
const/immutable/nothing). Also if I did not know about the concept
of DIP2 such code would have been a mystery for me.
It seems that Walter has yet to learn that names are important. Using
nearly random words (and syntax) to express ideas and features, as
currently done in D2, is bad. It's the silly "invariant" /
"immutable" story again.
Python devs ask all people how to name things before, and then Guido
V. R. picks the most popular name. They do this because a single
person may have some bias: what is intuitive for a person (like
Guido, or Walter, or Andrei) may be not intuitive for most other
people. Choosing one of the most popular choices can't solve all
problems, but it helps finding a name/syntax that will result
intuitive for most future programmers.
Bye, bearophile
The discussion on the name is here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/transporting_qualifier_from_parameter_to_the_return_value_103609.html
And no, it was not random.
