D is dead

[Iain Buclaw]

On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 06:34:04 UTC, Shachar Shemesh 
wrote:
> On 23/08/18 09:17, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 05:37:12 UTC, Shachar Shemesh 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> One that hurt me lately was a way to pass a scoped lazy 
>>> argument (i.e. - to specify that the implicit delegate need 
>>> not allocate its frame, because it is not used outside the 
>>> function call).
>> 
>> I don't see why we just can't add support for scoped lazy 
>> parameters. It's already in the language just with a different 
>> syntax (delegates). That would probably be an easy fix (last 
>> famous words :)). I guess it would be better if it could be 
>> inferred.
>> 
>> --
>> /Jacob Carlborg
>> 
>
> Here's the interesting question, though: is this *going* to 
> happen?
>
> We've known about this problem for ages now. No movement.
>

It's on my todo list, however I've instead been doomed to work on 
higher priority things.

More generally though, some time should be spent on trying out 
things in the spirit of "will it blend" just to see what happens. 
  Putting effort towards having a more homogeneous environment in 
the language should in the long run pay its dividends.


> Some of the other problems are considerably less easy to fix. 
> Examples:
>
> A struct may be @disabled this(this), @disable this() and/or 
> @disable init. Can you say that libraries..
>
> Actually, strike that.
>
> Can you say that the *standard* libraries work with all 8 
> combinations?
>

The same goes for using shared, immutable and const against the 
standard library.

Iain