Designing a consistent language is *very* hard

[deadalnix]

Le 28/04/2012 21:27, q66 a écrit :
> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 18:43:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 11:10 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> But the overload of 'is' as an operator with 'is()' as an expression
>>> (and its various ugly arbitrarily assigned syntaxes)? WAT.
>>
>> It's not that unusual for an operator to have a binary form that is
>> totally different from its unary form. Like *
>>
>>> Seriously, one of the first things I'd like to see in D3 is a complete
>>> overhaul of is(). I say again, the various *semantics* of it are
>>> extremely useful, and are part of what makes D rock so much. But the
>>> *syntax* badly needs a total redesign. We need much saner syntax
>>> assigned to each of the current uses of is(), that doesn't look like it
>>> was grafted in from a PHP development branch.
>>
>> I agree that the IsExpression syntax is a bit of a disaster.
>> Eventually we can redesign it (D3), but there's no way we have time to
>> do that now.
>
> So .. D3 is coming? *runs*

I think it is too soon for D3, but at some point, breaking changes will 
have to be introduced.