shouting versus dotting

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>> The problem I see with "!" as a template instantiation is not technical. I
>> write a fair amount of templated code and over years the "!" did not grow on
>> me at all. I was time and again consoled by Walter than one day that will
>> happen, but it never did. I also realized that Walter didn't see a problem
>> with it because he writes only little template code.
>>
>> I didn't have much beef with other oddities unique to D. For example, I
>> found no problem accommodating binary "~" and I was wondering what makes "!"
>> different. I was just looking at a page full of templates and it looked like
>> crap.
>>
>> One morning I woke up with the sudden realization of what the problem was:
>> the shouting.
>>
>> In C, "!" is used as a unary operator. That may seem odd at first, but it
>> nevers follows a word so it's tenuous to associate it with the natural
>> language "!". In D, binary "!" _always_ follows a word, a name, something
>> coming from natural language. So the conotation with exclamation jumps at
>> you.
>>
>> That's why I find the choice of "!" poor. I believe it can impede to some
>> extent acquisition of templates by newcomers, and conversely I believe that
>> using .() can make templates more palatable. I tried using ".()" in my code
>> and in only a couple of days it looked and felt way better to me. Based on
>> that experience, I suggest that "!()" is dropped in favor of ".()" for
>> template instantiation for D2.
>>
>> Sean's argument that "The exclamation mark signifies an assertion of sorts"
>> is exactly where I'd want templates not to be: they should be blended in,
>> not a hiccup from normal code. Serious effort has been, and still is, made
>> in D to avoid shell-shocking people about use of templates, and I think
>> ".()" would be a good step in that direction.
> 
> Long argument short:  I don't mind !() at all, and changing it to .()
> seems like a pointless pedanticism.  But since you're the one
> suggesting it, there's a very good chance of it getting into the
> language (if it hasn't already), so there's not much use arguing
> against it.

It won't make it unless others try it and find it palatable too. But 
please let's try it first.

Also, I'm much less keen on introducing .() than on ousting !(), which I 
believe was a very poor choice. So I suggest we all explore other syntax 
choices until we find something that we can show to the world with a 
straight face.


Andrei