What's happening with the `in` storage class

[Jonathan Marler]

On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:40:08 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:26:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> Your time is valuable, too, and while I'm not going to tell 
>> you want to work on, I'd prefer something more important.
>
> If that's how you feel then I clearly don't share your values.  
> To me, cleaning up the unimplemented, half-implemented, and 
> poorly implemented features of D is very important.  I would 
> like to be able to use D professionally, and you make difficult 
> it to advocate for D with a straight face when you're willing 
> to tolerate this kind of sloppiness in the language definition 
> and implementation.
>
> All I'm asking for is a thoughtful decision, and don't 
> appreciate the implication that I'm wasting my time.
>
> Mike

Seems to be alot of fundamental problems with D that Walter and 
Andrei say are "unimportant".

Some of the things I've seen to be neglected are `shared`, `in`, 
broken import in-variance, tooling, community, compiler 
brittleness.  The results of the dlang survery seem to have been 
ignored.  Features like "tuples", "named parameteers", 
"interpolated strings" were highest on the list but I don't see 
any call to action.  In fact I see quite a lot of resistance.

It seems that Walter and Andrei are forcing D into an "end of 
life" stage where language improvements and cleanup are 
consistently rejected, even ones with high benefit/const ratio. I 
hope I'm wrong though. On the "technical scale" D is a top 
contender, but if it stagnates it will be supplanted by new 
languages, maybe even ones that already exist.