shouting versus dotting

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Chris R. Miller wrote:
> superdan wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
>>> dsimcha wrote:
>>>> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s 
>>>> article
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Andrei
>>>> Personally, I think that ".()" looks a little too much like a normal
>>>> function/method call.  The "!()" syntax looks just different enough 
>>>> to make it
>>>> easy to keep straight in my head that stuff with the "!" is a 
>>>> compile-time
>>>> construct and stuff without it can be evaluated at runtime.
>>> I'm arguing we _should_ make template code look like "normal" code, 
>>> whatever "normal" is :o). We _should_ strive for "quiet" templates.
>>>
>>> You know what annoys the living heebiejeebies out of me? Nested 
>>> template instantiations.
>>>
>>> This!(That!(TheOther!(crap)))
>>>
>>> I have a ton + change of those. In superdan's words: intercourse that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> im a bit drunk. but im much obliged since my name was mentioned n all.
>>
>> ! pisses me off too. i have an opinion. walter looked at unary ops 
>> that can be binary ops. first tilde. pulled tat off. ten he wanted the 
>> template thing. only 1 left was !. so he put that at work. right walt?
>> now i never like ! because of nother reason. i always forget to put 
>> it. and yes it's not needed. i look @ code its unambig. then wtf do i 
>> need that crap !
>>
>> anyhoo would be great if ! goes away. to hell with it. need to try 
>> asdad.(asdasd) to see how it feels. and yeah they all jump andreis 
>> neck whever he posts any. or walts. its funny. hold them guns folks. 
>> can i delete this later i wonder.
> 
> I live in California.  Legally I cannot own any gun that could 
> conceivably hurt someone when misused under the proper situations.  =/
> 
> I was never particularly annoyed by the !() syntax, but then again I 
> have not written much template code.  I can count the number of template 
> classes I have written on one hand.
> 
> I am deeply concerned about the proposed .() syntax, however, since (to 
> me) it's too similar to a function call.  This lack of finding some kind 
> of counterproposal left me studying my keyboard for any unused 
> characters that could become a symbol.  I saw these symbols that I could 
> remember no existing use for:
> 
> @, #, $, `
> 
> I'm favorable to the # symbol.  So a template would look like 
> foo#(int)(bar).
> 
> To me the # symbol looks like it could be two Latin 't' characters (not 
> to be confused with the Greek Tau 'T', which is different).  Thus one 
> could remember the mnemonic "template" with two t's for the # symbol.
> 
> Just a countersuggestion, I haven't really looked through specifications 
> or anything to verify the unused status of any of those symbols.

No go due to #line. :o(

Andrei