Does D have too many features?

[deadalnix]

Le 29/04/2012 22:40, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
> On 29-04-2012 00:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:58:19PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
>> [...]
>>> - is is messed up. It is a massive hack and have to be rationalized.
>>
>> As I said in another thread, the _functionality_ of various is()
>> expressions are very useful and should be kept. But the _syntax_ is
>> completely b0rked and needs some serious redesign.
>>
>>
>>> - version is a bad version of static if. The static if part of the
>>> version must go.
>>
>> What's your proposal?
>>
>>
>>> - comma expression is confusing and have very little benefice.
>>
>> +1. I say that D3 should drop the comma operator. Esp. when doing so
>> will open up the way for having native syntax for tuples. Needing to
>> resort to Phobos to have a way to name a compiler-supported type is
>> backwards and silly.
>>
>>
>>> - out arguments. We can return tuples, out argument is going
>>> backward in history.
>>
>> Not when there's no way to name tuples without resorting to Phobos (or
>> copy-n-paste Phobos code).
>>
>>
>>> - many array properties (.sort for instance) are useless and would
>>> be way better as libs.
>>
>> Yeah, .sort is redundant, and besides shouldn't be an array "property"
>> to begin with.
>>
>>
>> T
>>
>
> Let's not forget .reverse. Why these are properties (and .dup/.idup) is
> seriously beyond me.....
>

Why they are not provided as lib but by the core language ?