On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:16:49 +0000, Namespace wrote:

> On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 12:21:23 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:50:15 +0000, Namespace wrote:
>>
>>> For me it looks ugly. But I would prefer final(false) instead of
>>> !final.
>>
>> this opens a can of worms. should this be accepted too:
>>   enum doItFinal = false;
>>   final(doItFinal)
>> ?
>>
>> or even
>>   final(someFunnyTemplate!(with_, args, andOtherTemplate!"too"))
>> ?
> 
> Yes, please.

no, please. that's terrible, that's unpredictable, that's undebugable, 
that's slow. "we can make it dynamic" is not a good reason to actually 
make something dynamic.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to