On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 15:18:00 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 00:38:12 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
FYI: The "you must implement my feature request or D will
never succeed" attitude is rather common and never helpful.
Not to mention that such an argument would be demonstrably
false: every popular language without the feature you want has
apparently succeeded despite not having said feature.
This is a little different, however, in the sense that there is
no reason to add a feature to the language to do what is
requested. If you use Emacs, you can get the same thing in any
language using comments:
https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/FoldingMode
and I agree that having an such a feature(for #region) would
better be handled by comments(assuming it, itself, can be
commented out easily). But either way, we do not have the
capabilities with D in the first place. I do not use Emacs but
the Visual D, which I assume is the sponsored IDE for D.
This is an issue for the IDE, not for the language, and
changing the language would not have any effect on IDE support
for code folding.
Remember, it is not just about code folding(which seems to be the
common misconception). The cold folding is a sort of byproduct of
struct defining language features... of which, D has very little
of. Version, is a good one for certain things, but useless here
for code structure itself.
My original statement was if D had the ability to do proper code
folding rather than resorting to hacks and it has been derailed
in to an language vs ide battle.
So, with all the bloviating, all I have arrived at is that my
original hack is still the only way to get the cold folding I
wanted(the original use case I had in mind, even though I'd
rather have proper code structuring support in general).
Generally when even a hint of a suggestion of a language addition
is created, the worms come out to party...
