"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> Yea, that's a good example of why I've grown a distaste towards >> hard-and-fast religious design strategies. The designer inevitably comes >> across cases where it just doesn't work particularly well, and then >> they're forced to either stay true to their misguided principles by >> accepting an awkward problematic design, or contradict their alleged >> principles and go with a better design. And when they do the latter, that >> runs the risk of causing problems in other areas that had been relying on >> the old principle being rigidly followed. > > D has design principles, but those principles are often contradictory. I > don't see a good reason to follow a design principle out of principle if > it destroys the utility of the language. > > For example, consider: > > version (unittest) > > 'unittest' is a keyword, not an identifier. Making this work requires a > special case in the grammar. But the alternatives, > > version (Unittest) > version (unit_test) > version (unittests) > > etc. are all much worse than simply violating a principle and putting the > special case in.
Great example. Of course, one could argue that we religiously follow pragmatism ;) ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
