Does D have too many features?

[SomeDude]

On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 02:33:35 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:18:12PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
> [...]
>> C don't have out parameters as D have. C have pointer to do 
>> kind of
>> out parameters, and D have pointers too, this is a non issue.
>
> I argue that using 'out' vs. a pointer is a good thing, because 
> it
> clarifies intent. When you see a pointer, it's far from clear 
> whether
> it's an input parameter, an output parameter, or both.
>
> More and more, I'm leaning towards the opinion that all code 
> should
> reveal intent, preferably in a language-supported way. Unclear 
> intent is
> what leads to subtle bugs caused by people calling functions 
> with wrong
> assumptions. (You'd think this should be a non-problem with 
> programmers,
> who are presumably smart enough to figure things out without 
> being told
> in the face, but I've seen too much "enterprise" code by now to 
> not be
> cynical about it.)
>
>
> T

Of course, a better way would be to change the meaning of the 
comma operator to allow a Python-style syntax for return values, 
i.e something like

int, Error foo(char[] input, ref Bar){...}

auto res, err = foo(input, bar);

We would then only allow in and inout parameters. This would be 
much closer to functional style. There would be no longer any 
need for the "in" and "out" keywords.
If we push a little further, you can also get rid of inout by 
doing this:

int, ref Bar foo(char[] input, ref Bar){...}
auto out, bar = foo(input, bar);

Every time the compiler sees the same symbol as an input and 
output parameter, it can assume it's an inout parameter. This, of 
course, would break a lot of code.