[article] Language Design Deal Breakers

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 14:47:31 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
>>>> This behavior isn't useful. You'll find no argument except 
>>>> historical reason (which is a very valid argument
>>>> BTW) to keep that. Everything else is backward 
>>>> rationalization.
>>>
>>> If @disable is insufficient for a NotNull!(T) which does what 
>>> we need it to do, then more features are required.  Ignoring 
>>> the bugs in @disable, do you believe it is insufficient?  If 
>>> so, can you give us some example usages it does not yet 
>>> support/allow/provide for.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know what you answer to, but clearly not what you are 
>> quoting.
>
> I quoted it, but inserted my comment above between your 2 
> paras.  You then stripped it from your reply :P
> I have re-quoted it above "Most people agree..".
>

No, you get that @disable this() is not sufficient from anywhere 
but from my post. This craziness is going on for pages now. I'm 
stopping now, as it isn't going anywhere.

I'm still ready to discuss point I actually raised. The fact that 
@disable this() is not sufficient to implement NonNullable isn't 
one of them.