dst = src rather than src dst

[Daniel Keep]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of the proposal because you're getting into murky
>> semantic waters using '='.  I see this as a case of "if it ain't broke,
>> don't fix it".  :)
> 
> Yeh, and that's probably how Walter sees it too.  It ain't broke, just
> sprained a bit.  Just like automatic fallthrough in switch statements.
> It doesn't hurt bad enough to warrant breaking with how C does it.
> 
> I thought maybe there was a chance this time, because in the previous
> discussion I don't think anyone mentioned the possibility of maintaining
> the C-compatible alongside the new syntax.  Unlike the switch
> fallthrough issue the new syntax wouldn't preclude the old. Plus by this
> time I was hoping there were enough people seriously immersed in generic
> programming to see the type:value :: metatype:type  analogy more clearly.
> 
> But if Kirk doesn't get it, and Don doesn't chime in with "what a great
> idea" in the next 5 minutes, well ... it's hopeless.
> 
> --bb

If it's any consolation, I'd be over the moon if it really *was*
assignment.  Having types as just another value opens up so many
interesting possibilities.  Sadly, that's not the case in D just
as of yet.

Oh well :)

	-- Daniel