On Saturday, 2 September 2017 at 00:00:43 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
Regardless of the implementation, the idea that we should throw
the baby out with the bathwater is simply wrong. At least there
are a few who get that. By looking in to it in a serious manner
an event better solution might be found. Not looking at all
results in no solutions and no progress.
Problem is that you didn't define the problem. You showed some
code the compiler rejected and expressed that the compiler needed
to figure it out. You did change it to having the compiler
instantiate specified types, but that isn't defining the problem.
You didn't like the code needed which would generate the
functions and you hit a Visual D with the new static foreach.
All of these are problems you could define, and you could have
evaluated static foreach as a solution but instead stopped at
problems with the tooling.
You also don't appear to care about the complexity of the
language. I expressed three required changes some of which may
not play nicely with least surprise. You went straight to, we
just need to define a syntax for that instead of expressing
concern that the compiler will also need to handle errors to the
use, such that the user understands that a feature they use is
limited to very specific situations.
Consider if you have a module defined interface, is that
interface only available for use in that module? If not, how does
a different model inherent the interface, does it need a
different syntax.
There is a lot more to a feature then having a way to express
your desires. If your going to stick to a stance that it must
exist and aren't going to accept there are problems with the
request why expect others to work through the request.
