On 27 November 2012 19:47, Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov@gmail.com> wrote:
The discussed issue is one of those inconsistencies that make people struggle when using D. D's main selling point is rich metaprogramming. Others are rapidly catching up in the field of expressive native languages. If we set these early design decisions in stone, it means we will not be able to compete with them. And besides, are there many big proprietary D2 codebases that you afraid? I doubt there are. And Manu actually represents people who are willing to work on one, but are held off by these issues. Open source projects however will be easily fixable, and people using D will actually welcome these positive changes.On Monday, 26 November 2012 at 19:59:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/27/2012 5:52 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
I agree, and if I remember previous discussions on the subject
correctly, it seems like only Walter is in favor of upholding the
current restrictions of "alias" parameters to symbols. I simply do not
see a point in pushing compiler implementation details on the user like
that – for the programmer, a type is a type is a type…
Walter, do you have an example of a situation where the alias parameter
restriction would be beneficial? (for the D code involved, I don't mean
the few lines of code avoided in the compiler)
In any case, it will break a great deal of existing code to change that behavior.