DIP25 draft available for destruction

[Benjamin Thaut]

Am 06.02.2013 18:50, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
> On 2/6/13 12:40 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>> So the &value expression would only be left for taking addresses of
>> functions? Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around?
>> E.g. create some utilty function that is only there for taking the
>> address of functions and disallowing to do so by using &func?
>
> I don't think that would work without adding new keywords.
>
> Andrei
>

Whats so bad about adding a new keyword for this?

I fear that newcomers will find taking addresses pretty inconsistens if 
we implement this proposal. Because the language will have the take 
address operator "&" they know from c++, but it only works in some 
special cases. For all other cases addressOf has to be used. It would be 
much more consistent if you could use the "&" operator for everything 
but taking the address of a function. That would be more consistent in 
my opinion.

Lately I'm getting the feeling that D 2.0 is becoming a collection of 
hacks to workaround issues which could be solved by adding new keywords 
or doing other major changes. (like all the stuff that starts with __)

Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut