On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:47:58 -0500 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/14 1:10 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:01:10 -0500 > > Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn > > <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote: > > > >>> but i agree that this > >>> requirement should be documented. and i bet it will not, 'cause this > >>> will support principle of least astonishment, which is completely alien > >>> for D. > >> > >> Really? You done filling up that man with straw? > > > > so it will be documented? that was the rhetorical question. > > Does it need to be? I don't see a reason for anyone to go out of their > way to make the implementation inconsistent. Do you? The principal of > least astonishment means that the least astonishing path is chosen. In > this case, the least astonishing path has been chosen. Does it need > documenting for you to believe it? > > But my larger beef with your statement is that you assume D opts never > to take that path, which is absolutely untrue. maybe after five years of talking and after alot of people will relay on the current behavior, it will be documented.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
