DIP69: problem with scope grammar - need a new keyword

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:15:25 +0000
bearophile via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> Walter Bright:
> 
> > I have some ideas, but don't particularly like any of them. But 
> > I don't want to bias things, so what ideas do you guys have?
> 
> In this thread I have seen lot of discussion about the location 
> of const for struct/class methods, and I agree this is an 
> interesting topic, but one of the most important points of this 
> thread regarding DIP69 scope grammar seems too much ignored, that 
> is the syntax used implementing DIP69 needs to be easy to read, 
> understand, and remember. Overloading keywords meanings rarely 
> helps make code easy to understand. Often if you use a different 
> keyword for a different meaning your language is more easy to 
> understand.
> 
> Double keywords like "auto ref", "scope ref", "final switch" and 
> more cause some troubles, and I don't like them. I prefer 
> keywords like "auto_ref", "scope_ref", "final_switch", etc.

oh, please, no! what's wrong with double keywords? ah, except that
`shared static this()` is ok and `static shared this()` is not ok, and
it has no sane explanation...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20141209/c778af53/attachment.sig>