Parameterized Keywords

[Patience via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 00:47:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 20:54:22 UTC, Patience wrote:
>> On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 15:09:48 UTC, Lass Safin wrote:
>>> On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 05:56:54 UTC, Patience wrote:
>>>> int[size] <- creates an integer of size bits.
>>>
>>> You declare arrays of integers with int[size], you know that, 
>>> right?
>>
>> No, not right. Think again. Get your mind out the gutter. 
>> Making your own assumptions about what I am talking about can 
>> get you in to trouble. Only in programming languages were 
>> int[size] is interpreted as an array does it mean that.
>>
>
> To be fair, this is a D newsgroup and you did not specify that 
> you are talking about this as a general concept rather than 
> something for D. My first reaction was the same. It's only 
> natural to assume you are talking about this as a part of D.

Yes, but that isn't the point. The point is that only retards 
such as Bob takes abstractions literally.

Why does it matter if I used [] or {} or . or \ or <> to 
reference something doesn't exist yet and hence could be defined 
any way one wants? Then be told it is a total waste by someone 
that clearly doesn't have the basic intellectual ability to 
understand abstractions?

Basically: If someone can't understand that a new 
concept/proposition is malleable and not fixed then they really 
shouldn't be discussing it, They need to go back to their 0's and 
1's.

That is, I except someone to have to think about what I'm saying 
and interpret it properly instead of just adding there 2 cents 
and pretending like it's a dollar.