Website message overhaul

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/14/11 1:15 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Looks good, I think this is the right direction.
>
> Nitpicks:
>
> 1.
>
> // Type deduction works for function results. This is important for generic
> // functions, such as min below, which works correctly for all comparable
> // types.
> auto min(T1, T2)(T1 lhs, T2 rhs) {
> return rhs < lhs ? rhs : lhs;
> }
>
> It does not. The two types need to have a common type as well.

It's difficult to be concise and complete simultaneously. The underlying 
assumption is that if two types are comparable, they also have a common 
type.

> 2.
>
> The scope statement example should actually show transactional code.
> Otherwise the poor reader feels fooled into clicking "See example".
> Using scope(exit) to write something at function exit is useful for
> debugging, but scope(failure) is the real thing that is important to show.

Good point.

> 3.
>
> If contract inheritance is to be promoted on the front page (and it is
> certainly something that may attract developers), it should actually work.

Absolutely.

> 4.
>
> If we can find a less buzzy word than 'Multi-paradigm power' to describe
> D's multi-paradigm power, that would be nice, but I am also fine with
> the current state of affairs.
>
> 5.
>
> The most important language features are not displayed at all. Where are
> Metaprogramming, CTFE and code generation? It sure is hard to come up
> with a short but convincing example, but I think we should try to.

Those would be under the multi-paradigm thingie.


Andrei