I must say that I'm pretty happy with current syntax.
It's short and to point =) But this is the matter of
personal taste, indeed.

"Robert W. Cunningham" <rwc_2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C60B0F8.DF48C5F7@yahoo.com...
>
> Personally, I'd prefer "ctor" and "dtor":  Fewer characters, and it is
already
> a common notation in tools and CS literature.

   I prefer a little bit of verbosity, for clarity's sake. Not very
religious about it, though.

> I do, however, have a minor hang-up with the use of "~", which generally
means
> "not" in most CS usage.  So, to me, "~this" means "not this", which can
only
> mean "that".  So, logically, D should use "this" as the constructor name,
and
> "that" as the destructor name.  ;^)

   :) That's funny.

> And get rid of the tilde, which will have
> the beneficial effect of ending the use of Alt+126 forever!  (Well, at
least
> for D programmers.)  [Why is it that so many people without a tilde on
their
> keyboards have four names?  If I scratch the tilde off my backquote key,
can
> I have four names too?]

   He he... I have my own explanation:

http://www.jcabs-rumblings.com/JAQ.html#whylongname

> The fundamental gain is to NOT propagate C++'s error of reusing the class
name
> as member function names!  This changes (overloads) the notion of the a
name
> within its own context!  Ugh!

   There was a reason for that: multiple inheritance. But that's not an
issue in D.

Salutaciones,
                         JCAB