DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted.

The fact that the feature was already implemented behind a preview switch carried weight with Atila. He noted that, if not for that, he wasn't sure where he would stand on adding the feature, but he could see no reason to reject it now.

Walter accepted with a suggested (not a required) enhancement:

T front() => from;

T front => from;

As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for now by going with the current implementation as is.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1043.md

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:40:42 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

That's awesome! Congrats to Max.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 13:56:35 UTC, Meta wrote:

And to Adam. I believe it's his implementation behind the preview switch.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

T front() => from;

T front => from;

I kind of agree with Max's contention, but nonetheless, I quite like it.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

T front() => from;

T front => from;

It's one of those things that aren't necessary, but bring some small "quality of life" kind of change to the code we write. At least in my opinion, I quite like it, the same way I like how I can call a parameter-less function without parentheses.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

Excellent!

If there is no reason to reject an already-implemented feature, there's no reason to to reject it as non-implemented either.

If it feels like it's too much work to implement an otherwise good DIP, it should be accepted on the condition that someone does it, not rejected IMO.

Even if the maintainers don't have time to implement something themselves, it still lowers the bar a lot for someone else to do it when there is a promise to accept any sound implementation.

Good reasoning from Max.

On Saturday, 24 September 2022 at 08:45:33 UTC, Dukc wrote:

Not just already implemented, but reviewed and merged by existing maintainers. It shows the feature was considered by trusted colleagues to be worth adding as a preview.

DIPs for semantic features are much easier to review when there's an implementation so people can play with the feature and see how it interacts with the existing language. Basically the burden should be on the advocates to make their case, not on the maintainers to investigate an idea.