Manifest constants (was const again)

[John Reimer]

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:16:27 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:01:27 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>>> With the enum case, I doubt it would take more than a moment for someone 
>>>> to figure out what it was, and it is not confusingly similar to 
>>>> something else. Once one knows what it is, one might take a moment to 
>>>> ridicule the choice of keyword, but that's about it before getting past 
>>>> it and it becoming just more D jargon like static, class, and real.
>>> True and sad. Another opportunity to "do the right thing" missed.
>> C'mon, it's not that big a deal!
> 
> One can tell that from the reaction, no? As your suggestion has generated
> almost zero comment then it must be a small deal. 
> 
> In any case, the point is not so much how you see the size of the deal, but
> how your customer's do. My reading of the situation so far is that it
> struck instant and vocal opposition. The group of people in support have
> been quiet in comparison. Also, I feel it is especially significant that
> many of the people who have suggested that 'enum' is a poorer choice are
> not from the "usual suspects" set.
> 
>>> WILL THE NEW ENUM BE ALLOWED TO GROUP MANIFEST CONSTANTS TOGETHER?
>> No.
> 
> I take it that you are not so enamored with the school of thought that
> believes compilers exist to make life easier for coders. This keeps coming
> through in the mixed messages. You seem to want D to be an improvement over
> the foibles of C/C++ yet you have introduced a few constructs that are
> their own new foibles.
> 
> This one for example, means that redundant code will be needed and it has
> the potential to make reading source more difficult that it needs to be.
>  
> So I repeat myself ... Another opportunity to "do the right thing" missed.
> 


Firstly, I just wanted to say that I don't like the enum idea myself and 
honestly don't see how it "fits" as a solution... but, I'm now at the 
"oh well" stage when it comes to D. I know that I have practically zilch 
expertise in these things, so I'll just go a-whistling while I work and 
learn what I can from the sidelines (lots of good stuff to read!). Guys 
like Derek, who have experience and sense, can  plow into these debates 
(although, I think it must be a little exhausting for him by now :-) ).

Secondly, after this many years, it has become obvious that this 
newsgroup argues many points on issues that have already been decided 
(or practically so) behind the scenes. Some of these issues seem to be 
presented here almost as a way of "breaking the news", a kind of testing 
the waters. Thus the only purpose the vast majority of these discussions 
serve is that of socialization, education, and gossip ;-) around an 
exciting new language: it's a LOT of good discussion too... but perhaps 
just a little misguided if some presume that it has control factor (or 
even intimidation factor with Walter).  It seems kind of strange that 
these attitudes continue even now.

This group, then, really acts as a sounding board of savvy thinkers 
(okay, okay... I won't patronize you guys and gals: we're really just a 
herd of cattle! ;-)); nevertheless, I think some people, especially the 
newer ones that crop up every year or so, think they are molding the 
language with and for Walter. True, some discussion might amount to 
valuable contribution, but this prevalent perception of the openness of 
this language is pretty much invalid (this is not an accusation), and I 
think people get upset unnecessarily because the presume too much.  This 
also contributes to the lynch mob mentality prevalent here (ie, the 
perception that nothing will happen until people thump Walter on the 
head and yard him up the tree). In reality, there are likely just a 
precious few people who REALLY have Walter's ear.

For various reasons including some of the above, I'm actually much more 
relaxed and less prone to get perturbed at the process (amazing, but 
true!); this is not because I think it's right, but more because I'm no 
longer worried about the outcome.  Quite possibly, Walter and friends 
have things in hand; and with support from Andrei and others, he likely 
has the best chance of convincing the huge mass of hard-headed, 
intractable outsiders (mostly the c++ world).  So the fact that "good 
sense" here is not always listened to seems to be inconsequential. 
Quite honestly, if  we count all the things that should have killed D 
long ago (or so we thought), the language would have been dead long ago. 
  It is still getting along; and I think it's to the point where it will 
get along regardless of what some might call "perverse" decisions (enum 
included... strange as it may seem, it's not the worst), because as much 
as some of the ideas seem absolutely unsound, there seems to be enough 
rigor in the system to keep things moving in the right direction.

Please consider that even Walter's track record shows that he drops 
language elements that "prove in practice" that they cannot work.

All is not lost...

-JJR