On Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at 21:38:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/11/2014 2:28 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> class Foo
>> {
>> final:
>>     void bar();
>>     void baz();
>>
>> virtual:
>>     void crack();
>>     void crunch();
>>
>> final:
>>     void dodge();
>>     void damp();
>>     virtual void divert();
>>     void doh();
>> }
>
> class Foo
> {
>   final
>   {
>      void bar();
>      void baz();
>   }
>
>      void crack();
>      void crunch();
>
>   final
>   {
>      void dodge();
>      void damp();
>      void divert();
>      void doh();
>   }
> }

Dat indentation/scoping! It works, but it makes my eyes bleed.

Walter Bright:

> That said, there's still a case for !final.

It looks bad :-(

int foo() nothrow {
    return 0;
}
int bar() !throw {
    return 0;
}

Bye,
bearophile

13-Mar-2014 02:02, bearophile пишет:
> Walter Bright:
>
>> That said, there's still a case for !final.
>
> It looks bad :-(
>
> int foo() nothrow {
>      return 0;
> }
> int bar() !throw {
>      return 0;
> }
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

~nothrow

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at 21:38:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/11/2014 2:28 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> class Foo
>> {
>> final:
>>     void bar();
>>     void baz();
>>
>> virtual:
>>     void crack();
>>     void crunch();
>>
>> final:
>>     void dodge();
>>     void damp();
>>     virtual void divert();
>>     void doh();
>> }
>
> class Foo
> {
>   final
>   {
>      void bar();
>      void baz();
>   }
>
>      void crack();
>      void crunch();
>
>   final
>   {
>      void dodge();
>      void damp();
>      void divert();
>      void doh();
>   }
> }

With that in mind you can also claim that @system <-> @safe and public <-> private are redundant.

Let us make public default and remove the public keyword:

----
class Foo {
	private {
		//private stuff #1
	}

	//public stuff

	private {
		//private stuff #1
	}
}
----

Same with @safe/@system ;)
Long story short: It should always exist the opposite of a keyword meaning, to interrupt it.

On 3/12/2014 12:03 AM, Steve Teale wrote:
> Ace Walter - how do you find the time? I believe that you are becoming truly
> benevolent as you grow older ;=)

I rely on the fresh blood of unborn kittens.

On Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at 21:38:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/11/2014 2:28 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> class Foo
>> {
>> final:
>>     void bar();
>>     void baz();
>>
>> virtual:
>>     void crack();
>>     void crunch();
>>
>> final:
>>     void dodge();
>>     void damp();
>>     virtual void divert();
>>     void doh();
>> }
>
> class Foo
> {
>   final
>   {
>      void bar();
>      void baz();
>   }
>
>      void crack();
>      void crunch();
>
>   final
>   {
>      void dodge();
>      void damp();
>      void divert();
>      void doh();
>   }
> }
>
> That said, there's still a case for !final.

I was thinking about ~final, but yes, we need some way to get out
of qualifiers like final, override, pure, nothrow, ...

On 3/11/14, 11:36 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 March 2014 at 18:56:15 UTC, Indica wrote:
>> I'd like to point out that Walter and Andrei can't do it all
>> themselves. It takes a team and part of pulling it off is well defined
>> goals and job descriptions with devoted people.
>
> This is one of the motivations for my remark. They both have probably
> more tan enough to do without having to wade through the tremendous
> volume of responses.

I could use more tan, can't wait for the summer :o).

I'm glad you brought this up and that there was some good discussion following it.

Walter is a very nice man. He dislikes saying "no" to people on account of them getting mad at him or the language. So he'd rather not answer.

Lately we figured that's actually worse because it creates frustration (the perception is the request/effort is ignored, not acknowledged and declined). So we set to become more decisive about things. You may have noticed in recent history that we started more often to set the foot on the ground on one topic or another.

We hope that that is healthy for the community. It also means for us all to accept the reality that in matters of judgment we can't always do what others believe is best, and on occasion (hopefully not too often!) even not what would objectively be the best decision. What I'd like us to achieve and convey in future debates is that whatever decision we make, we are making it in full understanding of all involved arguments.

The "perpetual design" stage of D has ended. We've made our bed, it's time to lie in it. I foresee only one more area of possible breakage - thread support, and hopefully only code that was already broken should cease to compile.


Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu:

> The "perpetual design" stage of D has ended. We've made our bed, it's time to lie in it.

If you don't change your bed once in a while, it will start to smell. A language dies if it doesn't keep a subgroup of people for its design, and when necessarily its redesign.

Adapted from Simon Peyton Jones: ~We should avoid D success at all costs~


> I foresee only one more area of possible breakage - thread support, and hopefully only code that was already broken should cease to compile.

There is also to fix the small mess with tuples. I suggest to deprecate some usages of the comma. And there are few more small things to fix.

Bye,
bearophile

On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 00:37:42 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I could use more tan, can't wait for the summer :o).
>

Be careful. Sunglasses and sun cream indice 120 or you'll burn to ashes.

> Lately we figured that's actually worse because it creates frustration (the perception is the request/effort is ignored, not acknowledged and declined). So we set to become more decisive about things. You may have noticed in recent history that we started more often to set the foot on the ground on one topic or another.
>

Yes, that is a good change. More frustrating on the short run, but less on exhausting on the long run.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 05:10:42AM +0000, deadalnix wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 00:37:42 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
[...]
> >Lately we figured that's actually worse because it creates frustration (the perception is the request/effort is ignored, not acknowledged and declined). So we set to become more decisive about things. You may have noticed in recent history that we started more often to set the foot on the ground on one topic or another.
> >
> 
> Yes, that is a good change. More frustrating on the short run, but less on exhausting on the long run.

Yes, I also applaud this attitude. Taking decisive action not only saves time / energy arguing back and forth, it also boosts morale and gives a sense of direction. Keeping silent about things hurts morale because it can be (wrongly) perceived as ignoring the issue, being indecisive, or deliberately stonewalling. Any feedback is better than silence, even if it's a "no".


T

-- 
Freedom of speech: the whole world has no right *not* to hear my spouting off!