Short list with things to finish for D2

[Jesse Phillips]

lws Wrote:

> On 2009-11-19 15:46:57 -0800, Bill Baxter <wbaxter at gmail.com> said:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> > <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> I am thinking that representing operators by their exact token
> >> representation is a principled approach because it allows for unambiguous
> >> mapping,
> > 
> > There used to be an argument floating around that using 'opAdd" was
> > better than "op+" because the former encourages people to only
> > overload the method to do things that resemble addition.  Whereas op+
> > says I'm just a symbol, do whatever you want with me.
> > 
> > I never really bought into it... but it was what I was told years ago
> > when I complained that opSub opMul etc were harder to remember than
> > need be. :-)
> > I guess D will have to change it's story now.
> > 
> > --bb
> 
> The reason Walter provided me when I asked ~9 years ago was that "T 
> operator+(T)" causes unnecessary headaches when parsing.  opAdd does 
> not produce these complications when parsing function declarations.
> 
> T opBinary(string op)(T) also does not produce the same headaches.
> 
> -SC
> 

There is a page for the rational which I thought gave the OP's explination:

http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/rationale.html

However it does have this nice little gem:

"__ keywords should indicate a proprietary language extension, not a basic part of the language."

Which makes you wonder why D has __traits, __gshared... or are those not basic parts of the language? :)