On DIP 23

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:55:22PM +0100, Dicebot wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 16:35:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
> >I felt we were getting somewhere.
> >
> >Andrei
> 
> Both yes and no at the same time.
> 
> Last proposals did a great job addressing different issues regarding
> property syntax and I somewhat like them in that sense. But they
> miss an important paragraph about what properties are supposed to be
> in D semantically, when they should be used and what problems they
> try to solve. So far design feels like it is syntax based as opposed
> to use case based.

Agreed. I've mostly refrained from participating in the myriad of
related threads, because I felt like a lot of it was just bikeshedding
over what syntax should/shouldn't be allowed, what this or that syntax
should/shouldn't mean, but there wasn't much consideration of *why*
we're doing this in the first place, and whether / how the various
proposals will get us there.

Currently I feel like we're just making a gigantic mountain out of a
molehill, whereas more important issues like reviewing Dmitri's std.uni
replacement are being overlooked.


T

-- 
Valentine's Day: an occasion for florists to reach into the wallets of
nominal lovers in dire need of being reminded to profess their
hypothetical love for their long-forgotten.