Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 16 de noviembre a las 12:19 me escribiste:
grauzone wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Why not? ;)
The actual question is if Andrei/Walter are interested at all in
this. Because they didn't show any interest so far. D will
probably be doomed to compile time bug-typing I mean duck-typing
forever.
There's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to finding stuff to
work on for D2. I think we need to resign ourselves to the idea that
we need to focus only on one subset of the stream of good ideas that
are being proposed.
I completely agree and understand. I wish I had the time to make patches
myself for the things I propose. But it's very different if something is
not implemented because it sucks or just because the lack of men power :)
If some good feature has Walter's blessing, maybe other person can
implement it. Nobody wants to implement something if it doesn't have
Walter's blessing, because we all know he's very tough to convince, and
nobody wants to work on something it won't get accepted.
What I can tell is that Walter's keenness on adding/changing something
has a 10-fold improvement if a patch is present. For example Walter was
sort of ambivalent about opDollar and opDollar!(dim)() until Don simply
added it.
FWIW I was keen on structs interacting in interesting ways with
interfaces (and submitted a number of enhancements in that
directions) but then realized there are a number of problems that
structs/interfaces cannot solve. I believe that a better path to
pursue in checking interface conformance is via reflection.
But that's very laborious, to be honest, I saw some points in std.range
that would be hard to cover with static interfaces, but for those things
you have all the flexibility you're already using. But static interfaces
could cover a wide range of applications, making static duck-typing very
easy to use.
There's a saying that most all girls may look good in the dark.
Paraphrasing that, I'd say all language features look nice and easy when
(a) detail is not discussed, (b) all the rest of the language is assumed
to be mastered.
There are places in D where we can't do what we want to do. Those are
top priority. Those that do easier what we can do anyway (struct mixins,
static interfaces, even the better switch which I actually personally
like) are below top priority. The barrier is fuzzy because either I,
Walter, or Don may suddenly catch fancy to a specific thing to work on,
but I wish we were more, not less disciplined about that.
Andrei
