On 2010-12-17 00:34, Graham St Jack wrote:
I've attached a part of how concurrency.d could look like translated
to my suggested syntax. It probably contains a lot of errors because
did a quick translation and I had some trouble understanding the mixins.
Yes, even I couldn't understand them even a week later. Maintenance is a
real problem.
My initial reaction is that the proposed syntax helps a bit, but isn't
really a game-changer. I will let you know if I change my mind on closer
inspection.
No it's basically just syntactic sugar.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
