Flag proposal

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 6/11/11 12:36 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>  wrote in message
> news:isualt$hf2$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Combining existing features towards new ends is in some ways more
>> difficult than language design because you play within a confined ground,
>> and I am a bit disappointed that a few posters have shown only contempt
>> for such an effort.
>>
>
> That analysis of the situation hinges on the steadfast notion that Flag is a
> great thing.

Actually my point there was that we should be coy at this point about 
changing the language. Flag doesn't have much to do with it. It is clear 
to me that a language change would obviate Flag and would have 
additional advantages. The point is it would also have disadvantages.

> I absolutely appreciate doing things in library instead of language
> when reasonable to do so. You don't see me asking for map/reduce or
> ranges to be built into the language, do you? What a lot of people
> *don't* like is this seemingly frequent pattern:
>
> 1. Andrei comes up with something he feels is a great idea (And you
> do have a lot of genuinely great ideas, don't get me wrong. Probably
> more than most of us, certainly including me.)
>
> 2. The idea is posted to the NG ostensibly for discussion.
>
> 3. Andrei shoots down every objection as being wrong, failing to
> understand the idea's greatness, or some meta-argument trump card
> like "X is the N-word of the programming world" is pulled out.
>
> 4. The proposed idea can't possibly have any significant flaws, so
> everyone else on the board is obviously in contempt of something more
> fundamental, in this case, the strategy of preferring library
> solutions over language additions.

I thought what I was doing was to rationally discuss the proposal. 
Clearly I am in favor of it since I'm proposing it. But that doesn't 
mean I need to resort to eliciting emotional response, demeaning the 
counter-arguments, or discussing the competence or ulterior motives of 
the opponents.

> Just because some of us feel this one particular thing doesn't work well in
> library, does *not* imply we think new features are generally preferable as
> language additions. So please stop leaping to that conclusion.

Consider two statements:

1. "I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me."

2. "I dislike Flag. Instead I want named arguments."

There is little retort to (1) - it simply counts as a vote against. For 
(2) the course of action is to point out the liabilities of changing the 
language.


Andrei