new DIP47: Outlining member functions of aggregates

[QAston]

On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:46:49 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
wrote:
> I'm absolutely against this DIP.
>
> This proposal is just going back to the hell of header files 
> again. Why on earth would you emulate C/C++ when D was supposed 
> to be designed taking into account lessons learned from them. 
> This is unnecessary complexity added for the sake of a few 
> programmers who can't get out of C++ mode. I think you need to 
> have a good hard think about *why* header files were introduced 
> into those early languages and then consider if that reason is 
> still valid. Personally i don't think it is. Java and C# do 
> just fine without this.
>
> Seriously, this goes against everything you learn as a 
> programmer, nothing should ever be typed twice and then to say 
> that the declaration and implementation could be different just 
> boggles my mind?!?! Great more work!
>
> If implemented, i will never used this feature and i will never 
> deal with code that uses it either. I choose D *purely* because 
> it didn't have this header file nonsense. If i find in future i 
> start seeing more and more of this style of D code i would just 
> move on to use something else that doesn't have all this extra 
> baggage and work associated with it. Just because Manu brings 
> it up randomly you decide to create a DIP?
>
> In reality this is a documentation issue. Which has already 
> been addressed by DDOC or *.di files. If data exists in one 
> form, and it is needed in another, that's work a computer 
> should do. Not a human! IDE's also give you numerous tools to 
> get class overviews and such. If you are suggesting that you 
> also need these class overviews in code to be viewed on github 
> etc, just use comments. They are as arbitrary and simpler to 
> implement.
>
> Honestly this DIP is going backwards, i was under the 
> impression D was going forwards! I am so disappointed.

I totally agree (stating this just in case number of votes 
matters).