If you could make any changes to D, what would they look like?

[Basile B.]

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 09:47:54 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:
> Just for giggles, without pesky things like breaking changes; 
> rational thinking, logical reasoning behind the changes, etc.
>
> What interesting changes would you make to the language, and 
> what could they possibly look like?
>

Optional access operator. I tend to write more and more 
conditional expression with `null` as the third operand.

For example I count 93 occurences of the pattern in styx.
Not convinced that this is a very common construct ?
Let's take a look at dmd: **490** occurences.

Example picked from dmd:


```d
StringExp se = ex ? ex.ctfeInterpret().toStringExp() `: null`;"
```

becomes

```d
StringExp se = ex?.ctfeInterpret().toStringExp();
```

Please abstraint you to reply to me with remarks like _"this can 
be done using metaprog"_ ... I know because I did it too a few 
years ago (using `opDispatch`).

This should be built in the language because

1. the template solution is necessarily slow to compile
2. it is better for tooling