Short list with things to finish for D2

[KennyTM~]

On Dec 16, 09 07:21, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> 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? :)

__gshared was deliberately named to discourage its use iirc.