On 05/29/2014 05:35 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2014 16:07:08 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

Some of the inconsistencies you mentioned and Brian mentioned in his
talk are actually the result of consistencies.

I know this is a bit of a difficult thing to wrap one's head around,
but having something be mathematically consistent and humanly
consistent are often at severe odds.

I don't disagree, but I also think that we need to be very careful when
they're at odds, because it tends to result in buggy code when the rules are
inconsistent from the human's perspective. In some cases, it's best to better
educate the programmer, whereas in others, it's better to just make it
consistent for the programmer - especially when you're dealing with a case
where being consistent with one thing means being inconsistent with another.
Overall, I think that we've done a decent job of it, but there are definitely
places (e.g. static array declarations) where I think we botched it.

- Jonathan M Davis

I think this is not a point about "consistency", but about intuition.

In any case, simply reversing the order for static array types using an ad-hoc rewrite rule would be a huge wart, even more severe than the other points you raised, and we definitely wouldn't be trading one kind of consistency for another.

(In any case, the most elegant solution is to simply not have special syntax for language built-in types.)

Reply via email to