DIP1027 + Design by Introspection

[Paul Backus]

On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 at 16:57:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 at 15:55:23 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
>> Since DIP1027 is simpler than DIP1036
>
> This is a myth, with the exception of the implicit to string 
> conversion.
>
> DIP 1027 had to break up the string and reconstruct a new one 
> while reordering the tuple.
>
> DIP 1036 is a direct syntax rewrite. It just splits the string 
> on the ${ character into a tuple and puts a simple struct 
> wrapper around the string parts so you can identify them.

DIP 1027 is a single direct syntax rewrite with no library 
support required. DIP 1036 is two separate syntax rewrites, plus 
an algorithm for choosing between them, plus support code for the 
rewrites in druntime.

DIP 1036 has plenty of advantages compared to DIP 1027, but 
trying to pretend it is a simpler proposal is just dishonest.