On 18 February 2014 01:02, Kenji Hara <[email protected]> wrote: > 2014-02-17 22:33 GMT+09:00 Manu <[email protected]>: > > On 17 February 2014 16:18, Andrei Alexandrescu < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 2/16/14, 7:42 AM, Manu wrote: >>> >>>> So D offers great improvements to switch(), but there are a few small >>>> things I wonder about. >>>> >>> >>> TL;DR of my answer to this: at some point we must get used to the notion >>> that minute syntax tweaks are always possible that make us feel we're >>> making progress when instead we're just moving the rubble around. >>> >> >> OT: Do you realise how harsh your posts often appear to people? I often >> find I need to restrain myself when replying to your blunt dismissals of >> peoples opinions/suggestions. >> >> So, you admit that this is a disaster site, but are reluctant to consider >> what good may come of it? >> I'm not suggesting to move the rubble around a bit, I'm suggesting a >> missed opportunity to build something new and useful from the rubble. >> > > I completely agree with Andrei. We should continue to keep that D is the > successor of the most used system languages - C and C++. it's a *huge* > advantage against other modern languages. >
I agree, to an extent. That's why I say if it is to be improved, I guess it needs a new name. foreach eliminated almost all instances of for. I don't think anyone's upset about that.
