On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:50:56 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote: > On Mar 24, 11 22:25, piotrek wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote: >> >>> On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote: >>>> == Quote from piotrek ([email protected])'s article >>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote: >>>>>> D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used >>>>>> as identifiers, which can be annoying. "body" in particular is a >>>>>> common noun that programmers would gladly use as a variable name in >>>>>> physics simulation, astronomy, mechanics, games, health, etc. I >>>>>> think "body" can be removed from D with no harm, and with the >>>>>> benefit of allowing the name as identifier. >>>>> yes, please >>>>> body is also a html tag >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Piotrek >>>> >>>> Copied the following line from the Vala (=mostly reference counted >>>> language) web page. >>>> >>>> "It is possible to use a reserved keyword as identifier name by >>>> prefixing it with the @ character. This character is not part of the >>>> name. For example, you can name a method foreach by writing @foreach, >>>> even though this is a reserved Vala keyword." >>>> >>>> My body is hungry and starving. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> How is this better than _body or body_? >> >> I think "@" is a little bit nicer, but it doesn't change the situation >> at all . body (if possible) shouldn't be a keyword. Can anyone from the >> steering group state his opinion? :) >> >> Cheers, >> Piotrek > > I agree body shouldn't be a keyword. > > The @body solution doesn't work in D because: > ...
Yes I know. I was only referring to how it looks. I'm allergic to the underscore char in programming languages ;) "better" in my previous post was like: 2 cents are "better" than 1 cent and I can have 1 million dollars. So why would I want "@body" if I can have "body". @body was just useless noise. Cheers, Piotrek
