On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 21:15 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 9/28/2016 1:40 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: > > > > What's wrong with that usage? > > Because then something other than comparison is happening with <=, <, > >, >= and > there'll be nothing in the code to give the user a hint.
This is a very "tunnel vision" view of programming language and the way programs are constructed and perceived. But sadly I know we have been round this many times, and you will not be changing you viewpoint. But even though I know nothing will change, I feel required to take on the challenge again. Until you cite psychology of programming experimental data to back up any position, it is all just opinion and personal experience. I am happy with << as very much less than, or output depending on context, you are not. But it is bad philosophy for me to say << is comprehensible to me and so it is comprehensible to everyone, and equally bad philosophy for you to say the same with s/comprehensible/incomprehensible/. This sort of thing happened in Python with the reduce function, leaving Python 3 in a truly inconsistent position regarding higher order functions. So when it comes to writing DSLs I'll stick with Python and Groovy, until D gets it right. […] -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
