std.xml should just go

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday 12 February 2011 06:26:40 spir wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 03:17 PM, bearophile wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis:
> >> It's a problem of semantics. ~ is intended for eager concatenation.
> >> That's how it's designed and what it's expected to mean.
> > 
> > This is written nowhere. I am referring to my second proposal. It makes
> > code more generic, because it allows you to use ~ for both arrays and
> > lazy iterables in a polymorphic situation, and the computational
> > complexity here is not a problem. I'd like to know Andrei opinion on
> > this :-)
> > 
> >> More importantly, that's how it
> >> works for arrays. If you made it lower to chain, then either ~ for
> >> arrays has become lazy (along with every other user-defined type which
> >> overloads opBinary!"~" and made it eager as would be expected),
> > 
> > I agree, that's why I have prosed a second alternative that lacks this
> > problem (it doesn't use lowering, just operator overloading and a
> > mixin).
> > 
> >> Regardless, as it's not going to be implemented any time soon, there's
> >> not much point in debating it right now.
> > 
> > My second suggestion is related for Phobos only, and it's implementable
> > now, if there's enough desire.
> 
> Holà bearophile,
> what about using '*' for chaining syntax sugar. I mean, func composition is
> often written using '.' which means product (and is sometimes even spelled
> "product" for functions too), right? And product is written '*' in D...
> What do you think?

Walter already decided against using + for concatenation because of the 
perceived ambiguity - e.g. does "5" + "2" do "52" or "7"? He's not going to go 
for * for anything similar. Honestly, we don't need more syntactic sugar at this 
point.

- Jonathan M Davis