Adding a new design constraint to D

[forkit]

On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 10:26:09 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>
> The main cost is the opportunity cost [1]. Any effort we spend 
> implementing, documenting, debugging, and teaching 
> 'private(scope)' reduces the amount of effort we can spend on 
> other things. Likewise, any effort new users learning D have to 
> spend on learning 'private(scope)' reduces the amount of effort 
> they can spend learning other parts of the language (or, for 
> that matter, using D to solve their problems).
>

you mean, like @mustuse ;-)

a 'new' feature that I'll likely *never* have a need to use btw.


> So the relevant questions here are:
>
> 1. Among all of the possible improvements we could make to D, 
> is this particular one the *best* use of our limited resources, 
> as a community?

You mean limited people working on the compiler?

So if I paid someone to cover all the work associated with this, 
you'd be ok with it?


> 2. Among all of the additional language features we could ask 
> new users of D to learn, will this particular one give them the 
> *most* benefit for their effort?
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

again, I can come back to @mustuse ;-)

I can assure you, there is far more cognitive effort involved in 
understanding @mustuse, than there is for understanding the 
difference between 'private' and private(scope)'. For those of us 
who can already declare scope private, the cognitivie effort is.. 
0.000000000000000000000001% of the cognitive effort needed to 
understand @mustuse.