"body" keyword is unnecessary

[piotrek]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:09:25 +0100, Don wrote:

> piotrek wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:04:25 +0100, Don wrote:
>> 
>>> piotrek wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
>>>>>> == Quote from piotrek (starpit at tlen.pl)'s article
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
>>>>>>>> D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be
>>>>>>>> used as identifiers, which can be annoying. "body" in particular
>>>>>>>> is a common noun that programmers would gladly use as a variable
>>>>>>>> name in physics simulation, astronomy, mechanics, games, health,
>>>>>>>> etc. I think "body" can be removed from D with no harm, and with
>>>>>>>> the benefit of allowing the name as identifier.
>>>>>>> yes, please
>>>>>>> body is also a html tag
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Piotrek
>>>>>> Copied the following line from the Vala (=mostly reference counted
>>>>>> language) web page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is possible to use a reserved keyword as identifier name by
>>>>>> prefixing it with the @ character. This character is not part of
>>>>>> the name. For example, you can name a method foreach by writing
>>>>>> @foreach, even though this is a reserved Vala keyword."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My body is hungry and starving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> How is this better than _body or body_?
>>>> I think "@" is a little bit nicer, but it doesn't change the
>>>> situation at all . body (if possible) shouldn't be a keyword. Can
>>>> anyone from the steering group state his opinion? :)
>>> What's the steering group?
>> 
>> I think you belong there. :) Along with Walter, Andrei, Brad and Sean.
>> Of course support of  David, Steven, Lars and Jonathan and the whole
>> community is invaluable. :)
> 
> Walter makes all the language decisions. The rest of us have just been
> able to convince him on multiple occasions (but I think that even Andrei
> has not achieved 50% convince rate). Hint #1: if you want to convince
> Walter, produce some real world use cases. Hint #2: you've got more
> chance if you make a patch, but ONLY if you've satisfied hint 1.
> 

The way the D is managed (in term of language specification) is the key to
its success. Walter is like a solid rock. e.g. If he did what bearophile 
suggests (respect for his work for polishing D) it would be a disaster ;)

BTW.
I think it would be great if I fall into compiler mechanics, but don't see
any chances in the nearest future.

>>> I raised this exact topic before, with the title "my body is ugly"
>>> <g>. It's a very silly keyword. It's just a comment, really /*body*/.
>> 
>> What stops Walter from removing it? If it was me, the next dmd release
>> would have one keyword less ;) (Forget for a while that I'm not
>> familiar with the dmd code)
> 
> Priorities. If you spend any time on 'body', that's time taken away from
> fixing important bugs. The potential benefit is *tiny*. There are 1000
> bugs that are more important.

So true. You know, after writing my posts I felt guilty because it could be 
rated as arrogant. I really appreciate Walter's work and didn't want 
to make any pressure on him (like I could ;). I'm grateful for him for all
amazing staff he did. D is the most beautiful language I have seen. It
has its pitfalls, but we know there can't be any perfect one. For now we
can live with our "body" :)
Speaking of real world examples(is my world really real? :D)
I hit "body" when I was doing an html generator. Long before that when 
I was reading language specification I looked with distaste at the "body" 
keyword in the contract programming section. Still no big deal.

Cheers,
Piotrek