[ ArgumentList ] vs. @( ArgumentList )

[Dmitry Olshansky]

11/8/2012 11:34 PM, Nick Sabalausky пишет:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:27:14 -0500
> Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]Plus, I would imagine
>> that library-implemented features would be slower to compile (simply
>> because it's just that much more to be compiled).
>
> Also, these particular sorts of things (compile time processing of
> things that are in-library) essentially amount to executing interpreted
> code to compile. Sure, that's very powerful, and very well worth having,
> but should it really be done for very common features? For common
> features, I'd imagine native non-"interpreted" support would help
> compilation speed, which is one of D's major goals and benefits.
> Suddenly interpreting large parts of the language might work against
> that.

If we finally get to the usual byte-code interpreter then it is more the 
sufficiently fast to do trivial re-writes that features like 
synchronized are all about.

Anyway I'm not for trying to redo all (if any) of the built-in stuff. If 
it's bug free and works, fine let it be. We can't remove it anyway. I 
just anticipate a couple more features to crop up if UDA dropping from 
nowhere is any indicator. And then another tiny most useful thing, and 
another one, and ...

>
>>
>> Not that I'm necessarily saying "Always stuff everything into the
>> language forever!" I just don't see it as quite so clear-cut.
>>


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky