Chad J wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> grauzone wrote: >>> >>> Also, you should fix the auto-flattening of tuples before it's too >>> late. I think everyone agrees that auto-flattening is a bad idea, and >>> that tuples should be nestable. Flattening can be done manually with >>> an unary operator. >>> >>> (Introducing sane tuples (e.g. unify type and value tuples, sane and >>> short syntax, and all that) can wait for later if it must. Introducing >>> these can be downwards compatible, I hope.) >> >> Non-flattening should be on the list but I am very afraid the solution >> would take a long time to design, implement, and debug. I must discuss >> this with Walter. >> >> Andrei > > Might I suggest a daring stop-gap: kill tuples altogether. > > Then we can implement them later correctly and it won't break backwards > compatibility. > > Ideally it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition either. Maybe we can > just kill the parts that are bad. Like disallow tuples-of-tuples, but > allow tuples that are already flat. > > - Chad
By the time you would have restored phobos to about 50% of it's usefulness you could have implemented non-flattening tuples ten times over. I would switch back to D1 :)
