On 2/6/13 1:39 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Am 06.02.2013 18:50, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 2/6/13 12:40 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
So the &value expression would only be left for taking addresses of
functions? Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around?
E.g. create some utilty function that is only there for taking the
address of functions and disallowing to do so by using &func?
I don't think that would work without adding new keywords.
Andrei
Whats so bad about adding a new keyword for this?
This is an ill-posed question. A keyword should justify its utility, not
prove it doesn't harm.
I fear that newcomers will find taking addresses pretty inconsistens if
we implement this proposal. Because the language will have the take
address operator "&" they know from c++, but it only works in some
special cases. For all other cases addressOf has to be used. It would be
much more consistent if you could use the "&" operator for everything
but taking the address of a function. That would be more consistent in
my opinion.
It would be more consistent with C++, but less so with the notion of
safety. I find it very consistent that all uses of &expression are safe,
and this is the kind of consistency Walter and I believe is worth aiming
for.
Lately I'm getting the feeling that D 2.0 is becoming a collection of
hacks to workaround issues which could be solved by adding new keywords
or doing other major changes. (like all the stuff that starts with __)
I can't help how you feel, but I think you're wrong here and I don't
know what other cases you're referring to.
Andrei
