shouting versus dotting

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Aarti_pl wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu pisze:
>> I agree that pattern matching on type trees will have to make it into 
>> the language in one form or another. In fact, syntactically it is 
>> already there, but compiler bugs/limitations prevent it from 
>> happening. One thing with the notation you suggest is that it doesn't 
>> quite look like the rest of the language, 
> 
> Really? I got in my code a lot of similarly looking code. My proposal is 
> in fact generalization and "uniformization" of existing syntaxes of 
> template parameters and is expression. In most common cases you get same 
> syntax as now.

Probably I misread the samples you posted with that bug report. Could 
you please point me to a more thorough description?

>> and perhaps a few simple steps could be taken to make it more integrated.
>>
> 
> I have nothing against improving this syntax. But I would be happy to 
> get one uniform syntax for: template parameters, IsExpression, static 
> assert, static if. And to dismiss this ugly:
> T : T[]
> creature ;-)

Oh how I wish Walter let that go.

> With my proposal you got only one universal syntax and few design 
> mistakes fixed. With current implementation state we probably lost 
> opportunity for uniform syntax.

Then I guess it's of interest. Again, need to build some more understanding.

>>> The strange think here is how minor issues (as most of community doesn't
>>> have problem with it) suddenly emerges from deeps and good ideas (which
>>> solve real problems) are sunken in the water... Well, I can give more
>>> examples if you want :-)
>>
>> This is pointing at some being born into royalty while others' good 
>> work is under-compensated. Well in a way I'm glad you bring this up. 
>> One thing that has caused and is causing an amount of stir and 
>> occasional irritation is the perception that I came out of nowhere and 
>> captured Walter's attention effortlessly. The reality is that being 
>> neighbors with Walter was part of the mix, but the prosaic bulk of it 
>> is that Walter cared only because of my previous and ongoing 99% 
>> transpiration. For better or worse, this state of affairs makes it 
>> that whatever I say is perceived as much more intense, imposing, 
>> controversial, quirky, or arrogant, than it is, and therefore much 
>> more scrutinized and criticized. This reaction is entirely 
>> understandable, and I'm still thinking of ways to assuage it. In the 
>> meantime it's costing me time because I feel obligated to answer the 
>> many replies to my posts.
> 
> Great that you see this issue. And even greater that you think 
> rationally how to solve it.
> 
> Currently I think that it would be good to ask community about top 5 
> problematic issues with D (not features, nor bugs because it would be 
> better to get more general knowledge). And after sorting out final top 5 
> list, commit to improve situation or solve problem in these areas in 
> reasonable, defined time. I think that people could post here proposed 
> features, most annoying bugs, D design mistakes, problems with 
> processes, problems with web pages etc. Just one restriction: only 5, 
> single, well defined issues in decreasing priority.
> 
> Well, I think that it might help to know what community really needs.

I think that's a good idea. For now, I'm waiting on the results of the 
Tango conference to percolate. I understand there was some discussion 
about mistakes in D's design.

>> That being said, it is always great if you can bring to the fore more 
>> outstanding problems that you think have good solutions thought of by 
>> you or others. Just please consider the above when you compare and 
>> contrast them against the petty issue of "!()".
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> I think that asking people about "top 5 issues" (see above) will bring a 
> lot of such a things. I will certainly contribute with my 5 groszy 
> (Polish "cents").

Ok.


Andrei