On 29/06/2022 1:38 AM, welkam wrote:
> Thank you for providing excellent example for an argument against this DIP.

The code that you are quoting is already valid D.

```d
string name()          => "abc";
double calculateArea() => 5.3f;
```

This is not and will be with this DIP.

It is extending existing syntax to a place where it should have been supported all along.

On 6/28/22 12:37, welkam wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 09:21:12 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> This is the discussion thread for the Final Review of DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax":
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/2c2f6c33f5761236266a96bd268c62a06323a5e8/DIPs/DIP1043.md 
>>
>>
>> The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on June 29, or when I make a post declaring it complete. Discussion in this thread may continue beyond that point.
>>
>> Here in the discussion thread, you are free to discuss anything and everything related to the DIP. Express your support or opposition, debate alternatives, argue the merits, etc.
>>
>> However, if you have any specific feedback on how to improve the proposal itself, then please post it in the feedback thread. The feedback thread will be the source for the review summary I write at the end of this review round. I will post a link to that thread immediately following this post. Just be sure to read and understand the Reviewer Guidelines before posting there:
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md
>>
>> And my blog post on the difference between the Discussion and Feedback threads:
>>
>> https://dlang.org/blog/2020/01/26/dip-reviews-discussion-vs-feedback/
>>
>> Please stay on topic here. I will delete posts that are completely off-topic.
> 
> Burn this dip with fire. There were a lot of talks about readability here but from what I can tell people mean two different things when they use the word readability. One is easy on the eyes, pleasant to look at. The other meaning would be its easy to understand what the code is just by glancing at it.
> 
> Proposed changes would succeed in making code less noisy and easier on the eyes but it will also harm scanability of the code.

The opposite is the case.

> Programmers rely on visual patters to understand the code.

This is just another pattern, a rather distinctive one and one that is mostly already in the language.

> Go language is the way it is for valid reasons. Don't dismiss them easily. 

Why not? I dislike Go for valid reasons.

On 28.06.22 15:38, welkam wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 June 2022 at 11:25:53 UTC, WebFreak001 wrote:
>> ```d
>> int width() => shape.match!(
>>     (Box b) => b.width,
>>     (Circle c) => c.radius * 2
>> );
>> ```
> Thank you for providing excellent example for an argument against this DIP. To a person who haven't coded in D for a while it was hard to understand what that code did.

Matching a couple of parentheses is not particularly D-specific.

On Tuesday, 28 June 2022 at 16:32:46 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>
>> Go language is the way it is for valid reasons. Don't dismiss them easily.
>
> Why not? I dislike Go for valid reasons.

Most people do.

Go is a terrible example for a good language.

Go only has one advantage and that's Google backing.