<mailto:
sean@invisibleduck.org>> wrote:
I suggest checking out Erlang messaging, as it's the basis for this
design. Maybe then things will be a bit clearer.
Are you suggesting that erlang is a common language that all programmers
worth their paycheques are familiar with... and would also find intuitive?
I don't know if it's the most sensible API decision to model a design
off something so obscure, unless you suspect that D should appeal
primary to ex-erlang users?
Just to re-iterate, I'm not arguing against the API or it's merits, it's
really cool, just that it shouldn't be the trivial one named receive().
That name should be reserved for the most conventional API.