On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 at 17:11:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 11/26/13 8:52 AM, ilya-stromberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 at 16:27:27 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
The win of (2) itself is yet to be quantified and the
breakage is large.
Excuse me, did you mean "disable shadowing global variables"
or "disable
shadowing class members"?
The latter.
Thanks for explanation.
I was confused because number (2) is "disable shadowing global
variables" and you wrote that don't want to have it. Thank you
for explanation because I can't interpret your opinion as I want.
If I understand everything correctly, Walter said that
"Shadowing
members, it's debatable". His main objection was about
initializing
variables in constructor, but we can add syntax sugar for this
case.
See also:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9801
I think Walter agrees that we can't disallow shadowing globals.
Adding additional sugar is pretty much the kiss of death for
the entire notion of disallowing shadowing of members.
Excuse me, I didn't understand you.
The main idea:
1) disable shadowing class members
2) add additional syntax sugar for initializing variables in
constructor as was suggested in #9801
It looks like that solves problem. Is it impossible?
As alternative solution, we can allow shadowing members only for
function parameters or, maybe, only for constructor. Walter
agreed that it's possible, "but at the cost of D becoming more of
a mass of special cases that nobody can remember".
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
So, syntax sugar in #9801 looks like better solution.
