On 22 January 2012 15:18, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-01-21 19:35, Manu wrote: > >> On 21 January 2012 18:09, Sean Kelly <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]**>> wrote: >> >> I suggest checking out Erlang messaging, as it's the basis for this >> design. Maybe then things will be a bit clearer. >> >> >> Are you suggesting that erlang is a common language that all programmers >> worth their paycheques are familiar with... and would also find intuitive? >> I don't know if it's the most sensible API decision to model a design >> off something so obscure, unless you suspect that D should appeal >> primary to ex-erlang users? >> >> Just to re-iterate, I'm not arguing against the API or it's merits, it's >> really cool, just that it shouldn't be the trivial one named receive(). >> That name should be reserved for the most conventional API. >> > > Scala also uses a similar API as Erlang.
Another super-mainstream language that everyone's familiar with :)
