null references redux + Looney Tunes

[Jeremie Pelletier]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
>> language_fan wrote:
>>> I admitted that later. Some of the keywords have a strong 
>>> justification behind them. Others feel irritatingly unnecessary.
>>
>> I would rather have many different specialized keywords than a few 
>> keywords with many different meanings. Its *much* easier to remember a 
>> large set of simple words than a small set of complex words.
> 
> Many of the keywords come from each basic type having its own keyword. 
> Sure, it could be done like C does with "unsigned long", etc., but those 
> were always hard to grep for.

I agree, especially since most libraries redefine these types to not 
have to use "unsigned long" and others all over the place and to 
abstract different compilers.

Having standard types in D is one of it's best features, just makes 
everything much easier.

> Also, the complex and imaginary types will be removed at some point and 
> replaced with a library type; there goes 6 keywords.

Why? What's the rationale behind such a move? These types will always be 
handled the same no matter what library implements them. These are 
always tricky to use in C since different compilers implement them 
differently, why do the same in D?