Can we just have struct inheritence already?

Timon Gehr timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Tue Jun 18 12:07:37 UTC 2019


On 18.06.19 11:23, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/13/2019 5:03 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> I think a lot of the default opposition to new features (especially if 
>> they can be implemented with a moderate amount of user code) is about 
>> DMD compiler complexity, about adding new things to a code base which 
>> already suffers quite a bit from incidental complexity.
> 
> D has a TON of features. And yet every single day, people demand ever 
> more features. How can this possibly work without turning D (and the 
> compiler) into a unusable mess.

As far as I can tell, a lot of the incidental complexity is introduced 
in bug fixes. Furthermore, the issue is:
- features whose implementation is spread all over the code base without 
an easy way to find all components of their implementation.
- features that should work the same (e.g. @nogc inference and pure 
inference) that have a different and incompatible implementation.

> I have no choice but to constantly say "no".
> ...

I agree it is a useful default stance.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list