We are forking D

[Walter Bright]

On 1/7/2024 11:09 AM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>> It's true that in order for this to work,
>>
>> ```
>> db.execi(i"INSERT INTO sample VALUES ($(id), $(name))");
>> ```
>> would need to be written as:
>> ```
>> db.execi(xxx!(i"INSERT INTO sample VALUES ($(id), $(name))"));
> 
>> ```
>> where `xxx` is the thoroughly unimaginative name of the
> ...
> 
> So 1027 is equivalently good in this aspect as long as programmers are 
> conscientious in their definition and use of a typing convention?

It turns out this is an issue for DIP1036 as well, as db.execi() is the 
template. I hadn't realized that.


> Unless 1036e is believed to be very difficult to implement correctly, or has 
> nasty cross dependencies that could cause problems later, this would seem to be 
> a bad trade (hypothetical? simplification of implementation in exchange for 
> making things harder for users).

Apparently DIP1027 is no harder for users than DIP1036.