On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 23:58:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Having said that, though, there are some here who *do* want
something like what you describe... IIRC Manu has voiced this
before, and there may be others. (I myself don't consider it a
big enough issue to be worth agonizing over.) So far, there
has yet to be a strong enough argument for per-aggregate
private to convince Walter & Andrei. It's them you have to
convince, not the rest of us. Even if we were to all agree
with you, it doesn't mean squat if Walter and Andrei won't
budge on the issue.
Again, I feel it's Walter and Andrei that should be doing the
convincing.. they are always silent on this matter, which is a
real shame,as I think their insights might actually be useful ;-)
If it's simply not practical, from a language design, to consider
this further, then I'd like to know that - I work at a higher
leve of abstraction and have no idea about this. So not hearing
from Walter or Andrei, is really unhelpful, as to whether it's an
idea worth pursuing, or an idea that Walter and Andrei would
never accept - which is it?
Anyway, the real 'problem' (in my opinion), is not the idea. The
idea is sound (or at least, it's not unsound), and it's
represented in all major langauges, already.
The real problem, is that whenever this idea pops up (as it has,
and will continue to do so), far too many people on this forum
attempt to divert the discussion from 'what is the usefulness of
this new idea' to 'what's the difficulty of finding ways to avoid
any change.'
The discussion can never move forward under those circumstances.
I would like the discussion to move forwards, and people start to
think about how such a change could be adopted, how difficult it
would be to implement, how will it play with other features in
the langauge..etc....
It's a real shame we can't get beyond "No. We don't like your
idea, and even if we did, we don't want to do it".
