Apparently unsigned types really are necessary

[Era Scarecrow]

> From: "Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a>
> > '''
> > White space may consist of:
> > - A comment between any two tokens.
> > - A single space between tokens that, if adjoined would
> be a single token.
> >
> > All other white space (including \n \r \t \v, etc.) is
> forbidden and a 
> > lexical error.
> > '''
> >
> > With these additions, all valid D code will be so hard
> to read that nobody 
> > will ever attempt to read it without first running a
> re-formatter over it 
> > and once that is standard practice, everyone will see
> it in there own 
> > preferred style.
> 
> Hah! I like it :)

 It does have a certain amount of sense it makes... but if that were really an issue, then having your won formatter strip the unneeded spaces and then re-introducing them back seems trivial, in which case a indentation tool would be more likely to be used (GNU indent anyone?).

 It does however become an issue regarding debugging, if sources are compiled against said compacted sources in that way. Everything would be on line 1, and other such messes. Course if your compiling the sources yourself and run it through your formatter your fine. But if someone else has their own format and download the source and reformat it to their format, line 117 may not point to anything, or point to the wrong object, or worse yet, if an assert was thrown and it was an unrelated passing assert; that is with the assumption you use a program compiled with debugging flags and you don't rebuild said executable.

 And most importantly of all. I quote "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".