On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:09:25 +0100, Don wrote: > piotrek wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:04:25 +0100, Don wrote: >> >>> 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? :) >>> What's the steering group? >> >> I think you belong there. :) Along with Walter, Andrei, Brad and Sean. >> Of course support of David, Steven, Lars and Jonathan and the whole >> community is invaluable. :) > > Walter makes all the language decisions. The rest of us have just been > able to convince him on multiple occasions (but I think that even Andrei > has not achieved 50% convince rate). Hint #1: if you want to convince > Walter, produce some real world use cases. Hint #2: you've got more > chance if you make a patch, but ONLY if you've satisfied hint 1. >
The way the D is managed (in term of language specification) is the key to its success. Walter is like a solid rock. e.g. If he did what bearophile suggests (respect for his work for polishing D) it would be a disaster ;) BTW. I think it would be great if I fall into compiler mechanics, but don't see any chances in the nearest future. >>> I raised this exact topic before, with the title "my body is ugly" >>> <g>. It's a very silly keyword. It's just a comment, really /*body*/. >> >> What stops Walter from removing it? If it was me, the next dmd release >> would have one keyword less ;) (Forget for a while that I'm not >> familiar with the dmd code) > > Priorities. If you spend any time on 'body', that's time taken away from > fixing important bugs. The potential benefit is *tiny*. There are 1000 > bugs that are more important. So true. You know, after writing my posts I felt guilty because it could be rated as arrogant. I really appreciate Walter's work and didn't want to make any pressure on him (like I could ;). I'm grateful for him for all amazing staff he did. D is the most beautiful language I have seen. It has its pitfalls, but we know there can't be any perfect one. For now we can live with our "body" :) Speaking of real world examples(is my world really real? :D) I hit "body" when I was doing an html generator. Long before that when I was reading language specification I looked with distaste at the "body" keyword in the contract programming section. Still no big deal. Cheers, Piotrek
