On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 15:37:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
inconsistencies and annoying points in the language. And much
of the time,
those inconsistencies and annoying points are forced by other
aspects of the
language that actually make things nice and clean. There are
always
tradeoffs, and often, there is no clear, right answer to how it
should be.
I think I misinterpreted what you meant to say, but if the
semantics are good and sound then you should be able to device a
consistent syntax for the language that is in line with current
terminology in comp sci (even if that means pointing to Wikipedia
for a definition of the term).
That would of course mean a lot of changes to D terminology:
"const" => "readonly"
"enum" => "const"
"range"=>"iterator"
"pure"=>"no global effect"
"ubyte" => "byte"
"lazy" => "by name"
etc...
