On 10/9/14 10:37 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
For functions, const-as-storage-class applies to the function symbol. And if it is misused, the compiler will very likely complain about a mismatched type.
Can you demonstrate this? I hate to see D reject a unanimously wanted improvement on something that is "likely" but not defined.
Breaking this adds a special case inconsistency, besides breaking existing code.
Just like if(x); is rejected inconsistently. The point is, it's WORTH having the inconsistency to avoid the issues that come with it.
(I understand that there's a lot of advocacy lately about "break my code", but I'm the one who bears the brunt of "you guys broke my code again, even though the code was correct and worked perfectly well! D sux.", besides, of course, those poor souls who have to go fix their code base, and I hear again about how D is unstable, another Reddit flame-fest about D being unsuitable because the designers can't make up their mind, etc.)
You need to grow a thicker skin on Reddit I think.
This endless search for the ideal syntax is consuming our time while we aren't working on issues that matter. (And this change will consume users' time, too, not just ours.)
This is not a new problem, not a crazy novel syntax, and the time consumed is already taken (PR already exists). Every time I turn around, someone on D is complaining that "we" shouldn't spend time doing this or that. But "we" are all volunteers, and while it's nice to have direction, if someone wants to work on something, I don't want to say "you can't do that, please work on X instead." It doesn't help, it doesn't motivate.
Really, what you are saying here is, the unanimous opinion of the die-hard very dedicated D community is worthless compared to the opinion of a hypothetical Reddit user.
-Steve
