On 07/10/2017 02:55 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2017-07-10 19:54, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
The other important thing I want to emplasize yet again (just in case,
because I know from experience in the past it's exactly this kind of
point that rarely gets noticed), I'm not proposing D do this. It'd be
far too big a change and it's far too incomplete to even think of trying
to push. (Even tiny straightforward improvements to D face dowwnright
epic levels of resistance any more.) So again, it's just some
brainstorming. Maybe D several decades from now, maybe some other
language inspired by D, maybe nothing ever, whatever.
Here I disagree. I think that D should have something like this.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't love to have it in D
(assuming it was all well-fleshed out and didn't have big problems). I
just wanted to be crystal clear that I'm merely discussing a langauge
design idea here rather than coming in saying "Hey, you people should
all like this idea and go implement it put it into D!!!" It's easy for
things to get taken that way here, and can result in knee-jerk reactions
and otherwise derailing of what's really only intended as a theoretical
academic discussion. If something *were* to come of it, and it worked
great, and everybody was happy, then fantastic. That's just not what I'm
bringing it up for, that's all.
