On 9/21/14, 1:41 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:28 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]>
wrote:
alias Int1 = Typedef!(int, "a.Int1");
alias Int2 = Typedef!(int, "b.Int2");
ah, now that's cool. module system? wut? screw it, we have
time-proven manual prefixing!
Use __MODULE__. -- Andrei
you still can't grok concept of "ugly == unusable".
Also I must be missing the distinction between "workable solution" and
"usable solution". Such semantic subtleties seem to be lost on me in
this context.
thank you, i'd
better fsck this miserably attempt on type security, and many other
practical programmers too. we trying to explain you this and each time
you answers "so what? no, it's not." even to people who tried to use
this disgusting "solution" and found it unacceptable and broken.
The problem here is inept argumentation. I'm all for a well argued
debate. This argument seems to have trouble getting legs, and foaming at
the mouth is unlikely to add value to it.
alias Int1 = Typedef!(int, __MODULE__~".Int1");
don't make me laugh. this is not just ugly, this is MEGAUGLY.
Pretty much by what I mean with "foaming at the mouth" and "vivid
anecdote fallacy". Can you make an argument with words in the dictionary?
then we
can make some kind of magic template to hide this uglyness, yes. the
uglyness which shouldn't be there in the first place. each time when
such ugly "workaround" proposed we can see the feature as completely
broken.
people trying to tell you that it is broken for single developer (too
much to type for nothing). that it is broken for group developement
(people will forget to mix all the uglyness for necessary result). that
it is just broken.
please, we aren't bunch of kids who just happen to dislike typing extra
chars. our objections backed by trying to use the feature in practice.
I'm not buying this. The more it goes the less convincing it goes.
Andrei
