On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 10:29:46 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Forgot to some overall I'm for this change. I'd just like some
> automated way to fix old code ;-)

I said that I wouldn't write dfix until Walter was willing to start getting rid of old syntax. Not long after that Walter made this https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4021

dfix is under development. You can find it here: https://github.com/Hackerpilot/dfix

V Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:50:44 +0200
Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> napsáno:

> Kenji just proposed a slightly controversial pull request so I want
> to reach out for more people to discuss it's tradeoffs.
> It's about deprecating function qualifiers on the left hand side of a
> function.
> 
> So instead of
>      const int foo();
> you'd should write
>      int foo() const;
> 
> Then at some future point we could apply the left hand side
> qualifiers to the return type, e.g. `const int foo();` == `const(int)
> foo();`
> 
> Would this affect your code?

Yes (but I am ok with that)

> Do you think it makes your code better or worse?

Definitely better

> Is this just a pointless style change?

No

> Anything else?

Merge this ASAP, please :)

On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 08:50:52 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:>
> Would this affect your code?
no
> Do you think it makes your code better or worse?

no change, my code already looks like that

> Is this just a pointless style change?

no, left hand side function qualifier is just wrong IMO.

> Anything else?

Thank you guys

On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 11:24:08 UTC, Robert burner
Schadek wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 08:50:52 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:>
>> Would this affect your code?
> no
>> Do you think it makes your code better or worse?
>
> no change, my code already looks like that
>
>> Is this just a pointless style change?
>
> no, left hand side function qualifier is just wrong IMO.
>
>> Anything else?
>
> Thank you guys

mostly welcome

On 10/09/2014 01:10 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
> dfix is under development. You can find it here:
> https://github.com/Hackerpilot/dfix

That would make such decisions much easier :).
It doesn't appear to rewrite AST but only tokens at the moment.
How reliable is it?

On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 08:50:52 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Would this affect your code?

I've written code before in the style:
@property pure nothrow const //<- HERE
int foo();

So anybody else using this style might be affected.

But even then, I agree. D has always been about "if it's ambiguous, dangerous, and can be avoided, don't make it fucking legal".

> Do you think it makes your code better or worse?
> Is this just a pointless style change?
> Anything else?

I'm not really sure about the: "Then at some future point we could apply the left hand side qualifiers to the return type, e.g. `const int foo();` ==  `const(int) foo();`"

I don't think it buys us anything, except maybe silently changing semantics of code that hibernated through the deprecation process.

I mean, sure, it might be a little surprising, but it's not the end of the world.

On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 08:50:52 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Would this affect your code?
No, I always wrote it on the right.

> Do you think it makes your code better or worse?
Better.

> Is this just a pointless style change?
No, removing confusing style is good.

This pull request is a good thing (TM). +1 all the way.

Atila

On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 08:50:52 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Kenji just proposed a slightly controversial pull request so I want to reach out for more people to discuss it's tradeoffs.
> It's about deprecating function qualifiers on the left hand side of a function.
>
> So instead of
>     const int foo();
> you'd should write
>     int foo() const;
>
> Then at some future point we could apply the left hand side qualifiers to the return type, e.g. `const int foo();` == `const(int) foo();`
>
> Would this affect your code?
> Do you think it makes your code better or worse?
> Is this just a pointless style change?
> Anything else?
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4043

Dne 9.10.2014 v 10:50 Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
> Would this affect your code?

yes, but I understand the rationale so I don't mind

> Do you think it makes your code better or worse?

less ambiguous, so I would say better

> Is this just a pointless style change?

no

--
Martin

On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 08:50:52 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Kenji just proposed a slightly controversial pull request so I want to reach out for more people to discuss it's tradeoffs.
> It's about deprecating function qualifiers on the left hand side of a function.
>
> So instead of
>     const int foo();
> you'd should write
>     int foo() const;

Finally.

> Would this affect your code?

Yes, eventually, but I am willing to make the change and it is trivial compared to some other D2 migration related things :)

> Do you think it makes your code better or worse?
> Is this just a pointless style change?

I believe it is much less error-prone, prefix notation is currently a common cause of mis-interpretation from the reader.