On 2010-02-26 01:06:09 -0500, Don <[email protected]> said:
No, I'm trying to avoid a "prehistorical accident" type of rule.
For these purposes, the history of D begins when TDPL is published.
We're still in prehistory for a few more weeks.
Compatibility with C and C++ has always been critical for D; D contains
many historical accidents from C. But D has not yet set any historical
precedents.
All that's fine.
If we simultaneously release a language with @attributes, together with
attributes that don't use them, it looks silly.
That's true.
But I think the rules you proposed at the start of this thread are
worse than the "prehistorical accident" explanation. I think both
explanations are silly in their own right, but one is much more complex
to grasp for no benefit. Principles must be kept simple to be useful.
If they're not simple they'll look arbitrary anyway and you'll end up
trying to make the arbitrary look rational. I think it's better not to
pretend there is a principle rather than saying there is one that looks
like an excuse.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
