On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 21:14:59 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 19:56:31 UTC, Everlast wrote:
One of the things that makes a good language is it's internal
syntactic consistency. This makes learning a language easier
and also makes remembering it easier. Determinism is a very
useful tool as is abstraction consistency. To say "Just except
D the way it is" is only because of necessity since that is
the way D is, not because it is correct. (There are a lot of
incorrect things in the world such as me "learning" D... since
I've been programming in D on and off for 10 years, I just
never used a specific type for variadics since I've always use
a variadic type parameter)
To justify that a poor design choice is necessary is precisely
why the poor design choice exists in the first place. These
are blemishes on the language not proper design choices. For
example, it is necessary for me to pay taxes, but it does not
mean that taxes are necessary.
The syntax *is* consistent. In `foo(int[] a...)`, `int[]` is
the type of the parameter, and `a` is its name. This is
consistent with how all other function parameters are declared.
The only difference is in how arguments are bound to that
parameter. That's what the `...` signifies: that a single
parameter will accept multiple arguments. It's really quite
straightforward and orthogonal.
No it is not! you have simply accepted it to be fact, which
doesn't make it consistent.
If you take 100 non-programmers(say, mathematicians) and ask them
what is the natural extension of allowing an arbitrary number of
parameters knowing that A is a type and [] means array and ...
means an arbitrary number of, they will NOT think A[]... makes
sense.
... itself already includes the concept of an array(list or
sequence) so having both [] and ... is either redundant or
implies a different meaning.
To prove you are wrong in one fell swoop:
Suppose you you want to create a function that takes an arbitrary
number of arrays of ints, e.g.,
foo([1,2,3], [4,2], [4,5,6,7])
foo([1,2,3])
foo([4,56,64], [4324,43,43], [4,2,2], [4,4,2,4,4,3,4], ...) //
where ... has a specific mathematical notation(that all people
familiar with mathematics understands as " continues in the same
manner").
How is foo defined in the most direct type specified way?
Of course, you will give me the D way, because you assume the D
way is the correct natural way... simply because you start with
your conclusion that what D does is the correct and natural way.
The real natural way is:
foo(int[] a...)
but in D we have to do
foo(int[][] a...)
by your logic
Now, the natural way is
foo(int[] a...)
Why?
because bar(int a...) is the natural way to create a function bar
that accepts an arbitrary(the ... tells us this) of ints)
Why? because bar(int a) would take one int, and bar(int a, int b)
takes two, and bar(int a, int b, int c) takes three and therefor
bar(int a...) takes an arbitrary number of ints.
Having to add [] only adds an extra set of symbols that means
nothing if ... would be correctly interpreted.
If I'm wrong, then you have to prove why a syntax such as bar(int
a...) cannot be interpreted singularly in the way I have
specified.
Again, just because D does it this way doesn't mean it is the
best way.
If you want to start from your conclusion that everything that D
does is perfectly correct then there is little point in debating
this...
