Andrei: > Design decisions are always taken in a context,
Right. But wasn't your comment about Scala named arguments complexity too out of context? > But at this point it is a necessity that we start > migrating our mindset from an endless wishlist - towards finding > ingenious solutions within the language. There are few basic features that are missing that are better as built-ins, even now. Tuple unpacking syntax sugar, named arguments, computed gotos, and few other smaller things. Do you want to freeze D language to D2 and not take a look at ideas for D3? > and I am a bit disappointed that a few > posters have shown only contempt for such an effort. You need to take a better look at the kind of people that are in this forum. People here are walking away from C++, Java (and even Python), looking for a feature-rich language that avoids some of the syntax kludges their former languages force them to use in their programs. So it's not so strange that people in this forum have on average a significantly lower tolerance to tricks like your Flag proposal. In a C++ forum your Flag idea probably is much more welcome, because compared to D programmers probably C++ programmers accept a higher level of noise and ugliness in their code :-) > What's wrong with myTuple.expand? It does nothing of what I need? Haven't we had this discussion already? I am having a huge deja-vu :-) I have discussed this topic several times already. Didn't you agree about the need of unpacking syntax sugar for tuples? I am confused now.................................. Bye, bearophile
