DMD 0.166 release

[Ivan Senji]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:59:18 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>>> suggestion that in/out/inout be specified at the call side as well.
>>> Yes, it would be the same. But I think the interface should be set by 
>>> the definition, not the use. 
>>
>> Yes we agree. But the purpose of this suggestion is not to 'set the
>> definition' but to 'document the usage' of the definition. The purpose is
>> to help both the compiler and human reader to validate the intention 
>> of the
>> coder. The definition would still be set when declaring the function 
>> but if
>> the compiler optionally allowed parameter storage class keywords at the
>> point of invocation, you could help ensure that the coder is doing 
>> what she
>> intended to do. It is a form of DbC.
> 
> Setting the behavior at both the point of definition and point of use 
> may result in fewer programming bugs, it does so at the risk of making 
> modifications harder and annoying programmers.
> 
>>> That's the usual practice with programming languages, and I've never 
>>> seen it raised as an issue before.
>>
>> So what? You are in the wonderful position of creating a useful and 
>> superb
>> tool that can be very special. You have been a trail blazer and can
>> continue to be one.
> 
> If people don't like adding { } around the lazy expressions, they aren't 
> going to like putting 'lazy' in front of them, either. Every time I've 
> seen a feature like this, the complexity was at the definition point, 
> *not* the use point.

Only it isn't "{ expression }" it is: "{ expression }()".