On 09/28/2016 04:21 PM, pineapple wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 20:18:06 UTC, pineapple wrote:
This is not and was not intended to be a glorious, incredible addition
to the language. It is meant to shove D a couple inches further in the
direction of modern programming constructs. Everywhere a programmer
can use `else` instead of mucking about with a boolean success flag
and having to make absolutely sure the code intended to handle a
success state doesn't and will never be modified to throw an exception
that the error handling code isn't designed for means less time spent
on tedium, and less opportunity for programmer error.
Or, more concisely:
Just because we have `for` doesn't mean we reject `foreach`.
Just because we have `while` doesn't mean we reject `for`.
Just because we have `goto` doesn't mean we reject `while`.
A DIP should stay as far away from this kind of argument as possible.
Redundancy of existing features should not be used as precedent and
justification for adding another redundant feature.
The right angle here is to successfully present evidence that the
frequency of a specific idiom/pattern is high enough to justify adding
redundancy.
+cc Dicebot to add this to the guidelines
Thanks,
Andrei
