On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 03:25:24 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
His point is similar to my other point elsewhere though. I
don't think
he's talking about 'power' in the sense you describe, what he's
really
talking about is consistency or uniformity. His original scope
proposal wasn't 'powerful' (even though it was effectively more
powerful), it was holistic, and without the edges that seem to
have
been introduced to try and 'contain the concept into a smaller
space',
if that makes sense.
In this particular case, I think practical 'complexity' is being
expressed in the form of awkward edge cases, and the reason that
happened I suspect, is precisely what Andrei asked me to do;
talk
about the specific problem case, not the general problem that's
recurring in numerous problem cases.
I feel like the current proposals are to effectively add yet
more
edges to address specific cases, rather than removing the edges
that
are already present causing the problems in the first place.
Address the problem, don't add layers of patches to round off
rough edges.
This mostly matches my current opinion of DIP25 + DIP69 as well.
It is not as much problem of lacking power but utterly breaking
KISS principle - too many special cases to remember, too many
concepts to learn. Path of minimal necessary change is tempting
but it is path to C++.
