How about "auto" parameters?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:36:20 -0400, Matthew Ong <ongbp at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 6/3/2011 11:16 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
>
>  >But it's also tiresome to continually argue the same things over and  
>  >over with new people.  I think this is just the way things are, and  
>  >will always be.
> Have you ever wonder why that pops up over and over again by your own
> experience?

It depends on the problem.  If the problem has a conclusive negative  
answer, it's just annoying.  If it's something that seems promising but we  
could not find a way to implement it, or we already implemented it some  
other way, then it can be difficult to convince someone to reopen it.

Take for instance rebindable const object references.  Walter steadfastly  
refused to look at any possible new suggestions because he had already  
expended so much time trying to find a syntax that worked and was not  
confusing.  I still feel there is a possible syntax that would work, and  
that it's a feature we need.  Michel Fortin's patch for it seems like the  
only possible way to get this through with Walter, we'll see how it works  
out.  But yes, there are cases where something is a good idea, but it is  
difficult to get people to listen to your ideas because they have too much  
bad blood with it.

> Perhaps people knows that is the useful syntax? Nope,
> the world changed in the last 3-4 years, and shocked a lot of people.

Again, if you have new ideas that people haven't seen before or haven't  
tried before, it's always worth trying to see if people will accept them.   
When you see "we tried that already, and it doesn't work" it's a good idea  
to stop right there (although a thorough explanation is usually more  
appreciated).

> Past does not define the future. Just like C++ people mocked at Java 1.0
> or Java mocked at C# does not mean those idea are alll bad?

I hate salmon.  Every time I go out to eat with my parents and my father  
gets salmon, he tries to get me to eat it saying "yeah, I know you don't  
like salmon, but this is different, this is really good".  And any time I  
try it, I still hate it.

If someone says "we tried that *EXACT* thing in the past, and it doesn't  
work" you are basically wasting your time arguing that you have some new  
interesting way to get it to work.  BTW, D has a lot of ideas that came  
 from Java and C#, we are not against them.

> The only constant in history is: Past does not define the future.

No, the only constant is people who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

-Steve