DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Community Review Round 1

[Paolo Invernizzi]

On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 02:21:18 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am Sat, 21 Jul 2018 19:22:05 +0000
> schrieb 12345swordy <alexanderheistermann at gmail.com>:
>
>> On Saturday, 21 July 2018 at 08:55:59 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Frankly speaking, my feeling is that D is becoming a 
>> > horrible mess for the programmer...
>> 
>> > /Paolo
>> How!? Please Explain. You need to demonstrate evidence instead 
>> of appeal to emotional fallacy by resorting to "feels".
>> 
>> -Alexander
>
> The DIP increases consistency recalling that rvalues are 
> accepted:
>
> - for the implicit 'this' parameter in methods
> - in foreach loop variables declared as ref
>
> No more special rules: rvalues are implicitly promoted to
> lvalues where needed.

That's correct, but 'this' is already a special guest in C++ 
style PL, with its own special rules. The support for ref 
variable in foreach loop.... can be removed (yup!), or made 
stricter.. no more inconsistency.

> The feeling probably comes from the
> inevitable realization that the community is pluralistic and
> Dlang acquired a lot of features that go towards someone else's
> vision for a good PL. Some want a relaxed stance towards
> breaking change, some want C++ or ObjC compatibility, some
> want to know what assembly a piece of code compiles to or have
> soft realtime constraints that don't work with a system
> language's mark&sweep GC. Is D2 messier than D1? Sure it is,
> and it caters to more use cases, too. As soon as you
> substantiate what exact feature is adding to the horrible
> mess, someone (often a group) will jump to defend it, because
> they have a good use case or two.

Yep, and I'm conscious to be often a pessimistic, lurking guy 
here in the forum... :-/

> It is kind of ironic that in order to do better than C++ you
> have to support most of what modern C++ compilers offer and end
> up having tons of unrelated features that make the language
> just as bloated as C++ after a decade of community feedback.
> It is a system PL. I think it needs to be this way and is a
> lot cleaner with basic data types and more expressive still,
> lacking a lot of C++'s legacy.

There's a tension between Walter effort in turning D as a 
suitable language for memory correctness, and a good candidate 
for writing 'bug free rock solid software fast' and the 
continuous addition of features like this.

Joke aside, I'm still on Jonathan side on this.

Finally, sorry to use often the term 'feeling', and sorry for not 
being constructive: but really is a 'feeling'... I don't pretend 
to be right. So no problems in just ignoring that

  :-P

Cheers,
Paolo