Walter Bright Wrote:

> I wrote a brief article which should help:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/migrate-to-shared.html


__gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)

Hello bobef,

> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
>> I wrote a brief article which should help:
>> 
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/migrate-to-shared.html
>> 
> __gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)
> 

I think that's the point: they look ugly because they are ugly.

bobef wrote:
> __gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)

They're only allowed in safe mode, and are meant to inspire people to use them only when there's no other choice. Hence the unattractiveness <g>

BCS, el 14 de mayo a las 16:48 me escribiste:
> Hello bobef,
> 
> >Walter Bright Wrote:
> >>I wrote a brief article which should help: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/migrate-to-shared.html
> >__gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)
> 
> I think that's the point: they look ugly because they are ugly.

I prefer normal keywords for standard things (keywords or symbols starting with __ are historically reserved for compiler specific features or even private stuff in Python). For __gshared I agree that it's something ugly and it's fine if it looks ugly.

But __traits?! Come on! __traits is beutiful, it deserves a beutiful keyword ;)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llucax@gmail.com)'s article
> BCS, el 14 de mayo a las 16:48 me escribiste:
> > Hello bobef,
> >
> > >Walter Bright Wrote:
> > >>I wrote a brief article which should help: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/migrate-to-shared.html
> > >__gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)
> >
> > I think that's the point: they look ugly because they are ugly.
> I prefer normal keywords for standard things (keywords or symbols starting
> with __ are historically reserved for compiler specific features or even
> private stuff in Python). For __gshared I agree that it's something ugly
> and it's fine if it looks ugly.
> But __traits?! Come on! __traits is beutiful, it deserves a beutiful
> keyword ;)

True.  I think I subconsciously avoid anything with an __ in front of it because
to me the connotation of an __ is "Only works if the stars align just right.
We're trying to scare you away from this feature for a reason.  Here be monsters."
 If traits, excuse me, __traits, is stable enough not to deserve this connotation,
then it absolutely deserves its own keyword.

Reply to dsimcha,

> True.  I think I subconsciously avoid anything with an __ in front of
> it because to me the connotation of an __ is "Only works if the stars
> align just right. We're trying to scare you away from this feature for a reason.  Here be monsters."

like __gshared? <g>

> If traits, excuse me, __traits, is stable enough not to deserve this
> connotation, then it absolutely deserves its own keyword.

I think traits should get first class treatment as it really isn't being used as the backdoor hack that the __ implies.

== Quote from BCS (ao@pathlink.com)'s article
> Reply to dsimcha,
> > True.  I think I subconsciously avoid anything with an __ in front of it because to me the connotation of an __ is "Only works if the stars align just right. We're trying to scare you away from this feature for a reason.  Here be monsters."
> like __gshared? <g>

Exactly, except __gshared deserves this treatment.

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> I prefer normal keywords for standard things (keywords or symbols starting with __ are historically reserved for compiler specific features or even private stuff in Python). For __gshared I agree that it's something ugly and it's fine if it looks ugly.
> 
> But __traits?! Come on! __traits is beutiful, it deserves a beutiful keyword ;)

I like the idea of using __ for temporary, transitional, and
experimental keywords.  Using __ has several advantages here:
  - It's unlikely to collide with existing identifiers.
  - You can create as many of them as you want without worrying about
namespace pollution.
  - It's ugly as a reminder that the feature is temporary, transitional,
or experimental.
  - It's easy to search for and easy to globally replace with a real
keyword.

Eventually all features using __ keywords should be removed, renamed, or modified in such as way that they do not require a keyword at all.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd@eldwood.com

Walter Bright wrote:
> bobef wrote:
>> __gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)
> 
> They're only allowed in safe mode, and are meant to inspire people to use them only when there's no other choice. Hence the unattractiveness <g>

Agreed. Yet as others have said, __traits deserves a beautiful keyword.