A better way to deal with overloading?

[rjframe via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:38:53 +0000, Profile Anaysis wrote:

> Do you realize
> 
> 1. That without change there can be no progress?
> 
> ...
> If people with your mentality rules the world we would still be using
> sticks and stones. This is a fact... I won't argue whether it would be
> the best thing or not.

Please argue for your proposal on its merit, not by criticizing the people 
who disagree. It can be difficult to communicate/work with strangers -- 
all we have is respect and the benefit of the doubt, and cannot afford to 
lose either.

You'd have a much better chance of getting a language change by a) getting 
a couple of people who agree with you to write a quality DIP, and b) 
listening to the criticism of those who disagree to refine the proposal 
(or in this specific case, find that it's not necessary (Alexandru 
Ermicioi's code)).

> Because you think such a syntax(one that hasn't even been created yet)
> will somehow be detrimental to your progress is insanity.
> 
> 1. You have no way to judge the syntax since it hasn't been created yet.
> Hence you have to be against all syntactic sugar, which I already
> pointed out, is everything. Hence you are actually against progress in
> the big picture, including your own.

A language is more than its feature set; language design is about 
balancing features and constraints. A language that tries to let you do 
anything and everything would make it too easy to create an unmaintainable 
mess (e.g., we need constraints either in the language or in the 
programmer).