On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 23:45:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

I wasn't putting you in the group that makes crazy claims about the GC.

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 21:46:45 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:

I am here when D was advertised as a general purpose language. The last development efforts are concentrated around making a better C, not a better D.

• wrong idea of what private means (yes, I know that you disagree on that, but every OOP book/study/reference considers the class as unit of encapsulation);
• struct inheritance
• explicit interface implementations
• class destructuring
• properties
• pattern matching on class type
• pattern matching on fields/properties
• implicit constructors

Personnaly I want gc to stay and improve. But when I see the language trying its best to please the gc haters, I wonder if the GC is the right default memory management in D. That was in fact the main idea of this post, which model of memory management will be more suitable to be assumed in D to make everyone happy.

Finally, I found something from the old D1 page:

15 years ago. I will reply with this quote to everyone who has "another library solution".

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 04:24:56 UTC, rumbu wrote:

What is "class destructuring"?

I would add user-provided default constructors to this list.

C++ can do this in a library:

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/user_literal

You need to find a better example. :-)

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 11:08:17 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

In D idioms allowing to overload tupleof if it was an operator. Combined with tuple support you can have the following code:

class A { int x; int y}
A a = new A();
(int v, int w) = a; // v will contain a.x, w will contain a.y

This was to show how D paradigm shifted in 15 years from avoiding library solutions to encouraging them.

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 12:42:04 UTC, Rumbu wrote:

Ok, I get it. So that would work with public fields only?

Yes, it is a weakness that class/struct are different yet very similar. Ideally a tuple should be syntactic sugar for a struct.

Yes. Andrei did that with D2. A strategic mistake, but perhaps more fun.

On 11/17/21 11:24 PM, rumbu wrote:

Let's adjust the straw in that man:

import std.complex;

auto i(double v)
{
    return complex(0, v);
}

void main()
{
    auto c = (6 + 2.i - 1 + 3.i) / 3.i;
}

-Steve

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 13:05:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

How can you bind something global to a common identifier like i?

You are joking, right?

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 13:05:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

import std.complex;

auto i(double v)
{
    return complex(0, v);
}

void main()
{
    auto c = (6 + 2.i - 1 + 3.i) / 3.i;
}

This is amazing :D

But, this has not been documented anywhere in the std.complex page, so I don't feel its fair to say that rumbu is making a straw man argument.