Walter Bright wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
language_fan wrote:
I admitted that later. Some of the keywords have a strong
justification behind them. Others feel irritatingly unnecessary.
I would rather have many different specialized keywords than a few
keywords with many different meanings. Its *much* easier to remember a
large set of simple words than a small set of complex words.
Many of the keywords come from each basic type having its own keyword.
Sure, it could be done like C does with "unsigned long", etc., but those
were always hard to grep for.
I agree, especially since most libraries redefine these types to not
have to use "unsigned long" and others all over the place and to
abstract different compilers.
Having standard types in D is one of it's best features, just makes
everything much easier.
Also, the complex and imaginary types will be removed at some point and
replaced with a library type; there goes 6 keywords.
Why? What's the rationale behind such a move? These types will always be
handled the same no matter what library implements them. These are
always tricky to use in C since different compilers implement them
differently, why do the same in D?
