DIP 1026---Deprecate Context-Sensitive String Literals---Community Review Round 1

Dennis dkorpel at gmail.com
Wed Dec 4 09:42:32 UTC 2019

Thanks for your detailed breakdown.

On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 23:35:21 UTC, mipri wrote:
> It makes "other people's code" slightly more annoying to 
> consider,
> as you may have to update that code to remove since-deprecated
> features.

That's the nature of deprecation: a short term cost for a long 
term improvement.

> If a feature were to be judged a mistake, it can still be a
> mistake to remove the feature later on. Less is not always
> better.

That's true.

> 2. D's problem is "too many features" -> let's remove any
> feature that we can -> this DIP as step #1, remove something
> that looks relatively easy to remove.
> How much agreement do you think there is on the first point?

I don't know how much explicit agreement there is to the 
sentiment that D has too many features, but I do know at least 
Walter is always interested in reducing language complexity, and 
many non-actionable complaints of users (such as "D is difficult 
too learn") are rooted in things like this.

> 3. "Walter said a thing about D, but a StackOverflow comment
> refuted that, so the language should change so that this
> criticism is no longer true."

That is only there for the narrative / background, correcting 
criticism is not a goal of this DIP.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list