foreach

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Jun 12 12:26:31 PDT 2014


On 6/12/2014 3:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
> Sorry, saving 1-2 characters typing is really minor. This does not, in
> my opinion of course, have any significant improvement on usability for
> D. It simply does not carry it's own weight, and the potential to create
> bugs in the foreach handling would be not worth the risk.
>

While I agree on its triviality, I really doubt there's much "weight" to 
speak of either. Hara probably could've already implemented and tested 
this in the same amount of time any *one* of us have already spent 
bikeshedding it.

>> While I do not see this as a showstopper for anyone, including, it
>> doesn't warrant such vehement attack. It is a convenience feature that
>> improves the overall experience of the D programmer. A plus in my mind
>> and worthy of the time required to discuss, agree upon a solution and
>> implement.
>
> It's not an attack of any kind, it's just a rebuttal. It in no way
> reflects on the proposer or the defenders of the proposal. If there is
> some significant improvement to be shown, I happily would reconsider my
> position. Can you name a place where the improvement is more than just
> saving the typing of 'i', 'j', or 'k'?
>
> There are hundreds of such proposals made for D, and many of them are
> rejected due to the lack of improvement to the language. This is not a
> unique situation. The bar must be set high for new features, or we would
> have a mess of a language.
>

FWIW: I think this can be viewed more as "Lifting undue restrictions".




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list