Editions Ideas

[Meta]

On Saturday, 13 December 2025 at 21:25:29 UTC, Sadiel wrote:
> On Friday, 12 December 2025 at 23:05:27 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> Now that Editions have been implemented (thanks Atila, Dennis, 
>> and Rikki) it's time to solicit D features to be dropped from 
>> the next Edition of D.
>>
>> I'll start by eliminating -revert=intpromote
>
> I think this is the way, focusing first on eliminating things 
> instead of adding more.
>
> This is a list of things that the D team have wanted to remove 
> over the years:
>
> - Complex number support
> - Lazy attribute
> - Some problematic features of classes, __traits(compiles, ...)
> - alias this
> - Extern C++ with an identifier for the namespace
>
> Now, what I would like is to simplify the syntax:
> There are like 5 ways of creating delegates, wouldn't be better 
> to stick to one?
> Make different keywords instead of overusing them, for example 
> static.
>
> For completeness this are things that the D team have wanted to 
> add or change over the years:
> - Constructor syntax
> - Pattern Matching
> - Import C++
>
> Sources:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb45QflK7Mk&t=29893s
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUkUZmkYsiY&list=PLIldXzSkPUXWH97DYBENhAqLk4DUqKUmf&index=21&t=1913s
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcyQdntgzQM&list=PLIldXzSkPUXVDzfnBlXcqZF6GB_ejjkEn&index=7&t=1530s

Why does everyone want to remove lazy? Just like contracts, it's 
a great language feature that for some strange reason, doesn't 
seem to be widely accepted by D developers. Do you know how many 
times I've dreamed of having something like lazy, writing Java 
for my day job? It inspired languages like Swift to add 
@autoclosure, and yet every time we start talking about features 
to remove, it's on the chopping block.