On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Steve Schveighoffer <[email protected]>wrote:
> The problem with RTFM is, they have a point. s.seconds = 5 looks like it > should work. So that response looks like you don't care about usage. D > isn't a dynamic language. > Right. I'd rather a language be liberal and accept a few silly things than be conservative and reject a few reasonable things. There will never be perfection with regard to this. > If you *want* to express that a function can be called both ways, then we > have to look into overloading properties and non-properties of the same name > with the same arguments, or using an annotation. But that's a separate > enhancement. We'd have to look at the merits of that separately, and I > personally feel the ability to do that is not worth the trouble -- you can > just as easily rename the function version, and it actually ends up reading > clearer. Yes, it's not always DRY, but DRY is never fully achievable, and > is secondary to usage semantics IMO. > DRY is the whole point of using any language above ASM. C prevents you from having to repeatedly specify calling conventions and stuff. C++ prevents you from having to repeatedly specify things like vtable layout, etc. etc.
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
