[OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

[krzaq via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 12:33:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 6/10/15 8:52 AM, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 17:43:18 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/9/15 4:06 AM, Brian Schott wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Also, you say 5 seconds as if that's a short amount of time.
>>>>> If it takes an automatic scanner 5 seconds, it means the 
>>>>> amount
>>>>> of coverage it needs to perform is huge.
>>>>
>>>> If anybody was wondering why DCD doesn't support UFCS, this 
>>>> is the
>>>> answer. I can't find a way to make it fast, useful, or 
>>>> compact in terms
>>>> of memory use.
>>>
>>> I can't see how a UFCS lookup is any slower than a normal 
>>> function
>>> lookup. It's just a rewrite.
>>>
>>> i.e.:
>>>
>>> a.foo
>>>
>>> 1. try finding member foo on type a.
>>> 2. try finding function foo
>>>  a. If found, find overload that will take a.
>>>
>>> What happens as you type:
>>>
>>> foo(a
>>>
>>> ??? how is it any different?
>>>
>>
>> One problem is that any auto-complete list becomes completely 
>> unmanageable.
>
> OK, I see the problem. When you type 'a.' then if you put up 
> the list of members and UFCS functions available, then that 
> list may be huge (and possibly filled with useless calls). That 
> definitely is an issue. However, I think DCD should still 
> support that option. A UI for an ide could be:
>
> 1. Lookup members, add to the list a "UFCS..." button at the 
> bottom.
> 2. When user clicks on that button, re-query DCD for all 
> functions that take the object as the first parameter, then 
> fill in that list.
> 3. If user continues to type in a UFCS method, and that doesn't 
> match any members, the autocomplete should start looking for 
> functions that start with that text.
>
> It would be a shame if DCD doesn't show you functions like 
> arr.empty.
>
> However, does DCD support querying a function's parameters when 
> it's a UFCS function? That should at least be manageable.
>
> -Steve

The funny thing is, one of selling points of C++'s version of 
UFCS is making it easier for the tools to give useful hints.

Personally, I find UFCS and ranges to be the most enticing 
features of D, allowing me to think of the flow of the data, 
instead of wondering where the hell does the ) go. Better 
templates, true immutables, mixins (though ugly), ctfe & static 
if are also appreciated.

Modules? Sure, nice to have, but they don't make the top 5 list 
for me. Why? Call it the Stockholm Syndrome, but most C++ users 
simply got used to header incurred problems and know to use PIMPL 
and avoid changing core headers. Though maybe my projects aren't 
sufficiently large.