On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:05:06 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: > On 6/14/2015 4:03 AM, ketmar wrote: >> honestly, if i'll want to have a limited language, i'll take Go. > > Go doesn't have conditional compilation.
you got it!
> > removing a power only 'cause it can be abused is not in a "spirit of
> > D",
>
> Actually, D does quite a bit of that. For example, it deliberately does
> not allow > to be overloaded separately from <. It does not allow
> multiple inheritance. It does not allow structs to have virtual
> functions.
>
> (All of these deliberate limitations have had their proponents.)
and you know what? people constantly trying to "fix" that. what is funny
is that sometimes ugly kludges are even considered for inclusion into
language ("multiple `alias this`, i'm looking at you! ah, and `alias
this` for that matter).
i also wonder why we have `opCmp` and `opEquals` instead of `opEquals`
and `opLess` only. having so powerful `opCmp` surely opens alot way to
abuse it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
