D needs a type expression syntax

[Walter Bright]

On 5/6/2023 8:55 AM, Quirin Schroll wrote:
> I have a very stupid question now: Why does a minor grammar change require a 
> DIP? How do people determine what is an enhancement and what requires a DIP?

It's not a stupid question at all.

The reason is, it is definitely non-trivial, it will impact a lot of code with 
deprecations, people will want a strong explanation of why this is worthwhile, 
and enable a wider audience to look for risks and flaws.

At a first reading, this looks like a worthwhile endeavor.

But the thing is, what you've written is already pretty close to being a DIP. 
You've already done the hard part.

One question: can this peacefully coexist with the existing syntax, before we 
push it with a deprecation?