Which language constructs could be done as a library if we accept some breaking changes?

[bauss]

On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 12:47:35 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 11:34:41 UTC, bauss wrote:
>> Pretty much anything can be solved in a library, except for 
>> things that requires AST/macros.
>
> There is no way to implicitly convert from other types 
> (particularly built-in types) to a struct, and I think Walter 
> is opposed to introducing that. This means no null -> Slice or 
> null -> AA and other implicit conversions. So any library 
> solution would be more awkward to use compared to the current 
> language equivalents.

Yeah, I'm not really supportive of everything having to be a 
library.

There are far more advantages of having some things built-in, 
rather than added as a library  solution.