On 02/26/2013 06:09 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I like overall approach and think it really should be rule of a thumb for designing D features - defining simple bullet-proof semantics and making conclusions from it. As opposed to syntax-based special case coverage. ...
Like it or not, that is what a compiler does.
What I do find lacking in this DIP: 1) "Optional parentheses" part needs detailed description why exactly those cases have special handling and how are they different from others. ...
That part needs a complete overhaul. It is way too complex given the goal the DIP pursuits.
2) If you want to prohibit functions having an address, you need a section explaining communication with C in details in regard to passing function pointers.
That actually wouldn't change.
3) It really needs a broad overview of semantic changes in common use cases and code breakage list.
I guess it breaks most projects out there.
