too much sugar not good for the health

[Johan Granberg]

Neal Becker wrote:

> Reading through "D Specification", I'm a bit surprised.  I believe the
> goal
> of D is to be a clean, improved C++.  Yet, there are a number of instances
> where syntactic 'sugar' is added in ways that seem almost arbitrary.  The
> latest example I found is 'Functions as Array Properties'.  I'm not sure
> what overwhelming need this syntax fulfills, maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> There is a lot of extra conceptual overhead in adding extra syntax.  One
> might argue that "You don't have use it if you don't like it.".  That is,
> unfortunately, not really true.  If other's use it and I have to grok
> there code, I need to understand the extra rules.
> 
> I've been following D with great interest.  I hope the language will not
> add such 'features' without great need - it really detracts from the
> purity and simplicity.

I agree that to much features is a bad idea. But I don't feel that the array
property syntax is an unneeded feature, rather I fell that it should be
generalized to cover all types and not just arrays. (It could be used to
replace methods but I don't think that would be a good idea for D, at least
not in the shot term)