Editions Ideas

[libxmoc]

On Friday, 26 December 2025 at 17:53:49 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, 26 December 2025 at 00:48:54 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 25 December 2025 at 22:33:28 UTC, Richard (Rikki) 
>> Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>>> Rename it to ``@namedexpr``
>>
>> No thanks
>>
>> One of the reason people mentioned they were turned off by D 
>> is weird naming decisions like using `enum` for manifest 
>> constants. Good names matter; familiar names are good, even if 
>> semantics are slightly different
>
> I also told him in DM's that nobody is going to know what that 
> name means. I sure don't.
>
> Names have become a focus point of mine while working on Phobos 
> 3. JMD will tell you that I can be super picky. But your 
> reasoning is sound. Names need to be familiar even if they are 
> slightly different.
>
> And yes, I tend to use `@property` like I use it in C#.


Why bloat global scope and reserve names?

```
import utils = myapp.utilities;


void main()
{
     utils.thing();
}
```

Solved.

None of that would matter if D had a specific way to use builtins.

Example:

```

struct Actor
{
     @:property // : = builtin
     int hp();

}
```

This way, language maintainers could use whatever names they want 
without forcing users to cede common identifiers.

That's what I like about Zig, zero reserved keywords.