Help!

[Max Samukha]

On Monday, 26 November 2012 at 19:59:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 5:52 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> I agree, and if I remember previous discussions on the subject
>> correctly, it seems like only Walter is in favor of upholding 
>> the
>> current restrictions of "alias" parameters to symbols. I 
>> simply do not
>> see a point in pushing compiler implementation details on the 
>> user like
>> that – for the programmer, a type is a type is a type…
>>
>> Walter, do you have an example of a situation where the alias 
>> parameter
>> restriction would be beneficial?  (for the D code involved, I 
>> don't mean
>> the few lines of code avoided in the compiler)
>
> In any case, it will break a great deal of existing code to 
> change  that behavior.

Please stop repeating that "will break lots of code" mantra. D 
user base is very small and it doesn't grow *because* issues like 
the one discussed do not get fixed. When they are fixed people 
may start using the language. And *then* you would have to worry 
about backward compatibility. Look at the recent Manu's 
complaints and see what people who would really use the language 
have wanted from it for years.