How about "auto" parameters?

[Matthew Ong]

On 6/4/2011 2:10 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 > Again, you can't base all this on one failed proposal.
I am assuming you are referring to this string switch topic:

http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/technotes/guides/language/strings-switch.html

I am sure they would have talked about the pro and cons already?

That suggestion is ahead of this java 7 implementation of only static 
string value.

 >*Sometime* (not all the time), repeating the history, get things 
changed. Most people need linear time to 'sink' in the idea.
This should speak for itself clearly.

 >Walter steadfastly
I never pointed at Walter, I read some of his paper from his home page.

 >If you have a legitimate argument, you will get better results. 
Listening to the community doesn't mean obeying every request that gets 
submitted.
Totally agree about this. Which is why I suggested this:

Alternatively, D might want to use *some kind of voting tool online* on 
yahoo (group, missing) to help vote for syntax that programmer really 
wants. A simple solution to the long like JCP process in Java.

Web base open voting with clear results viewed. Or else, who knows what
has already been suggested and voted on for the next version of DMD?

 >The point is, if something doesn't work, "trying it again" isn't going 
to make it work the next time.
I understand that, I went offline for a week plus to see if someone with 
more solid case to present and is similar or inline with the
proposal that presented. No point being the lone person voicing out?

 >Single or small group of people's choice that DOES impacting the 
entire D community.
I know most of them are not from digital mars.

 >a iron curtain style management, EVEN that has changed.
But they do voice out like one.

 > Good ideas aren't always accompanied by good or obvious designs.  The
 > point I was making is, you need to have a very solid "oh, obviously that
 > is better!" design in those cases in order to re-open the issue, even if
 > the core ideas are solid.

 >What I see in your past proposals are personal choices that will 
affect everyone in the community,
That is normal for all mankind to make a preference of choices,
some think english is good because of Shakespear, chinese is good
because of LiBai, and yet others,

 >What you need to do in this case is *avoid* repeating history.
Actually, I cited that example to highlight the point of:
to consistently *do the right thing* within the constraints it chose

In programming and *most*(not all) thing in life.
As not possible. Unless you claim to know all possible path of future.
That mentality is in itself self-contradictory. Since, it is constrained.

It is more like recovering from the error that you make and solutions
found and kept.

Java 1.4 to 1.5, James Gosling also had the mind set of trying
to keep things as simple as possible. M$ proved otherwise with C#.
It is an industrial factual history. M$ did the right choice in this 
aspect and captured a large set of developer.

Hopefully this makes a clear solid point as shown here.
 >The point I was making is, you need to have a very solid "oh, 
obviously that is better!"

I am not talking about "auto" anymore, but the process of reviewing
new suggestions and improvement.

-- 
Matthew Ong
email: ongbp at yahoo.com