On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 17:11:24 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
All things being equal, it would be nicer to have consistency,
but do we really I want to break almost all existing code?
I know you've proposed a tool to do the transition, but there
are lots of unmaintained projects out there that are still
used, and tutorials/articles/books/university courses written
using the existing syntax. Those likely won't be, or can't be
changed easily.
One possible compromise might be to leave the old syntax there
for legacy reasons, but allow (and encourage) @pure, @nothrow,
etc.
I completely agree with your point, but if things never get
cleaned up we'll need a guy like Scott Meyers to explain the
overcomplicated result. I don't know how to resolve this issue,
opponents of change will claim that a language will never get
traction if it changes too much too quickly, and proponents will
claim that not removing inconsistencies leads to a mess. Both are
right.
