Multiple return values...

[foobar]

On Thursday, 15 March 2012 at 18:23:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
>
> I understand how the draw of reaching for new syntax is 
> extremely alluring. I used to fall for it much more often, but 
> over years I have hardened myself to resist it, and I think 
> that made me a better language designer. In this stage of D, I 
> think we should all have an understanding that adding syntax is 
> not a win. Instead, it is an acknowledgment that the existing 
> language, for all its might, is unable to express the desired 
> abstraction. This is sometimes fine (such as in the case of 
> introducing multiple new symbols from one tuple), but generally 
> the question is not "why couldn't we add syntax X?" but instead 
> "why should we add syntax X?"
>
>
> Andrei

I agree that this is an acknowledgement of the current language's 
inability to express the abstraction. That's why many people ask 
for it to be added in the first place. We should add this syntax 
because it *is* impossible ATM to implement the required 
abstraction.

A good design should strive to provide general features instead 
of special cases (E.g. swap is limited to the 2-tuple case). 
Also, why force an overhead of a function call on such a basic 
feature as assignment? Is swap usually inlined by the compiler?