DMD can implicitly convert class pointer to the bool. Is it bug or terrible feature?

[ilya-stromberg]

On Monday, 25 November 2013 at 09:39:14 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
> On Monday, 25 November 2013 at 04:35:10 UTC, Andrei 
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 11/24/13 8:27 PM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
>>> Would it be possible to introduce a global scope of sorts that
>>> had to be explicitly referenced when one wanted to define or 
>>> use
>>> a global variable. I haven't thought of how this might 
>>> interface
>>> with other D features, but something along the lines of:
>>>
>>> @global int my_gobal_var; //Gets added to global scope.
>>>
>>> //Then any globals would have to be referenced as:
>>> global.my_global_var = 7;
>>>
>>> Makes for a bit of extra typing, and would mess with any 
>>> module
>>> named 'global', but it might work?
>>
>> To put it bluntly, many things are possible but it seems the 
>> best is to do nothing here. We're in good shape.
>
> I personally like Craig Dillabaugh's sugestion. But we can use 
> `.` operator for this because it alredy used for call global 
> functions and, probably, should break nothing. Like this:
>
> int my_gobal_var;
>
> .my_global_var = 7;
>
> Is it possible?

Sorry if I didn't explain idea properly.

We can force using `.` before global variables. Almost everybody 
agree that use global variables is bad idea, so additional symbol 
looks acceptable.