DIP25 draft available for destruction

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/6/13 1:39 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Am 06.02.2013 18:50, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> On 2/6/13 12:40 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>>> So the &value expression would only be left for taking addresses of
>>> functions? Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around?
>>> E.g. create some utilty function that is only there for taking the
>>> address of functions and disallowing to do so by using &func?
>>
>> I don't think that would work without adding new keywords.
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>
> Whats so bad about adding a new keyword for this?

This is an ill-posed question. A keyword should justify its utility, not 
prove it doesn't harm.

> I fear that newcomers will find taking addresses pretty inconsistens if
> we implement this proposal. Because the language will have the take
> address operator "&" they know from c++, but it only works in some
> special cases. For all other cases addressOf has to be used. It would be
> much more consistent if you could use the "&" operator for everything
> but taking the address of a function. That would be more consistent in
> my opinion.

It would be more consistent with C++, but less so with the notion of 
safety. I find it very consistent that all uses of &expression are safe, 
and this is the kind of consistency Walter and I believe is worth aiming 
for.

> Lately I'm getting the feeling that D 2.0 is becoming a collection of
> hacks to workaround issues which could be solved by adding new keywords
> or doing other major changes. (like all the stuff that starts with __)

I can't help how you feel, but I think you're wrong here and I don't 
know what other cases you're referring to.


Andrei