Am 24.06.2013 23:26, schrieb bearophile: > Walter Bright: > >> Yes, but since I don't know much about O-C programming, the feature >> should be labeled "experimental" until we're sure it's the right design. > > This change opens a new target of D development (well, it was already > open for the people willing to use a not standard dmd compiler), but it > also introduce some extra complexity in the language, that every D > programmer will have to pay forever, even all the ones that will not use > those features. So such changes need to be introduced with care and > after extensive discussions in the main newsgroup. Probably each one new > thing introduced needs a separate discussion. > > Bye, > bearophile
I agree. Even though it may not be mentioned in books and many people may never see the changes, it still *does* make the language more complex. One consequence is that language processing tools (compilers, syntax highlighters etc.) get updated/written with this in mind. This is why I would also suggest to try and make another pass over the changes, trying to move every bit from language to library that is possible - without compromising the result too much, of course (e.g. due to template bloat like in the older D->ObjC bridge). Maybe it's possible to put some things into __traits or other more general facilities to avoid changing the language grammar. On the other hand I actually very much hate to suggest this, as it probably causes a lot of additional work. But really, we shouldn't take *any* language additions lightly, even relatively isolated ones. Like always, new syntax must be able to "pull its own weight" (IMO, of course).
