On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 19:59:28 UTC, Rob T wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 15:55:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[..]
Then should public and private be @public and @private in
order to be
consistent? Then we'd be inconsistent with C++, Java, C# etc.
which would make
it that much harder for folks to learn D. Would you want
@static and @const?
I don't think that you can be 100% consistent. If nothing
else, as soon as you
make one thing consistent, it often ends up being inconsistent
with something
else. And sometimes consistency costs us. For instance, this
is perfectly
legal
[...]
Very good points. It's a balancing act for sure.
The other inconsistencies are having multiple ways of doing the
same things
Example
1) private { }
2) private:
3) private foo() { ... }
That's more to learn and more to document and different methods
may confuse people new to D unless they are already
preconditioned to it coming from a language like C++, however
sometimes having these options are nice and do serve a useful
purpose, although in the example 1 and 2 are redundant and 2
goes against the usual {} scope concept, which is very unusual
in terms of consistency.
--rt
I like that I don't have to repeat private with every declaration.
