On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 17:09:09 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
Craig Dillabaugh, el 31 de October a las 15:54 me escribiste:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:29:34 UTC, eles wrote:
>On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:28:05 UTC, dennis luehring
This seems like a bit of bikeshedding issue.
It isn't bikeshedding at all, is a functional problem, is key to
understand that before you keep discussing the issue :)
Since when has understanding an issue been a requirement for
discussing it? As evidence I point you to the comments section on
just about any major news site :)
I think I understand the implications of the current requirement
that d source files end with .d. However there are some
workarounds that, while certainly a pain, can be applied. Also,
some commentators had valid reasons to keep that status quo. I
can see systems full of files with .py extensions that are
actually D files and with .rb files that are actually c++ files
and so forth being a bit of a maintenance nightmare for the
person that replaces you (like when you quit your job because the
made you code in Python).
My reason for posting originally was not so much that I didn't
like the request, but simply to point out that whether D is a
serious language, or a toy language, doesn't really hinge on this
issue. All sorts of serious programming environments/tools have
'features' that may certain workflows a pain.
By the way, I like your proposed solution.