Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Brad Anderson]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>wrote:

> On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:41:01 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > I'll say I *don't* agree with the rejection of aliases on principle --
> > aliases can be extremely useful/helpful, and they cost literally nothing
> > (the "cognitive cost" on the docs is a BS argument IMO). I just don't
> > agree with consuming so many common symbols for the sake of sugar.
>
> aliases need to have a really good argument for existing. If UFCS is fully
> implemented, then I think that there is _some_ argument for having stuff
> like
> hours and minutes, because then you can do stuff like 5.seconds() (though
> honestly, I really don't like the idea). The alias enables different usages
> rather than simply being another name for the same thing.
>
>
What remains on UFCS? I've heard someone (Nick?) say he'd like it to match
static member functions too.  I haven't tested but it seems like
5.seconds() should work ever since Kenji's pull request was merged a couple
of days ago (thanks Kenji and Walter, I'm really looking forward to that
change).

Regards,
Brad Anderson


> Now, in this particular case, it's that much worse for exactly the reason
> that
> you're against it: it uses common names for free functions. It's not as
> big a
> problem as it would be in C or C++, but it's still a problem. There's also
> some risk that it will break code.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120309/044a3a0f/attachment.html>