On 11/26/13 9:39 AM, ilya-stromberg wrote:
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.
Apologies for writing the wrong number.
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?
It is possible to the extent a lot of things are. But at this point:
(a) It's unclear whether a problem even exist, and if it does, what is
its magnitude.
(b) There has been no convincing refutation of the alternative of doing
nothing ("if we do nothing about this, ..."). In fact doing nothing is
_very_ attractive from multiple angles (no work, no bugs, no
regressions, no breakage, no surprise).
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.
That sugar is already liable of causing cancer of the semicolon. And
adding a feature that is predicated on adding sugar? Kiss of death.
Just drop this. Ten people come, on their first day using D, with eleven
new ideas that shuffle things around a bit at the cost of breaking
everybody's code.
Thanks,
Andrei
