The current status of D?

Timon Gehr timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Sat Dec 3 19:14:56 PST 2011


On 12/04/2011 03:53 AM, Don wrote:
> On 04.12.2011 03:40, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 12/04/2011 03:10 AM, Don wrote:
>>> On 04.12.2011 00:13, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2011 12:09 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>>>>> Famous last words:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/3/11 11:47 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with is(XXX), […]
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> An explanation would be more helpful.
>>>
>>> For many years is(xxx) been reviled as the ugliest thing in the
>>> language. The simple forms are OK, but features kept getting piled onto
>>> it until it became clearly unworkable.
>>
>> So why not keep the simple forms and just replace the more obscure
>> functionality that is better expressed by other means?
>
> Yeah, that's the idea.
>
>> Removing is expressions entirely would break most D code (at least it
>> would break all of mine).
>
> Yes. Nobody's ever proposed complete removal of is expressions.
> It's the things like:
> is (foo bar == super)
> which I think you can't understand without looking up the spec every
> time. We still don't have a nice way of expressing such things.
>

Ok, thanks. I fully agree that those should be replaced.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list