Adding a new design constraint to D

[Walter Bright]

On 6/17/2022 10:14 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 21:40:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Not the least of which is there is no such thing as a correct language design. 
>> There are only tradeoffs.
> 
> There is an inconsistent language design. If the main paradigm the language is 
> built around is class-based OOP, then it is reasonable to expect that 'private' 
> is class-private (or at least there is a way to express class-private).

Consistency is a worthy goal, but as I explained in my recent Code Europe 
presentation, too much consistency leads to undesirable results, too.

For example:

     for (int i = 0; i; ++i);
     {
         ...
     }

D adds grammatical inconsistency to reject that.

And then there's that famously inconsistent symbol table lookup that D does that 
everyone but me insisted is intuitive :-)