On 15/09/2022 6:35 AM, Daniel N wrote:
> Because D is multiparadigm, everyone has their own list. I love and use all of those features. Currently I can only think of 1 feature I don't use, but others use it so it doesn't matter.

By any chance would it happen to be @property?

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 18:38:21 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2022 6:35 AM, Daniel N wrote:
>> Because D is multiparadigm, everyone has their own list. I love and use all of those features. Currently I can only think of 1 feature I don't use, but others use it so it doesn't matter.
>
> By any chance would it happen to be @property?

OK, you got me, lol.

I was going to post a poll on people who actually use its semantics last night.

I am pretty sure if we replaced it with a UDA there would be very limited breakage.

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 18:44:03 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> I was going to post a poll on people who actually use its semantics last night.
>
> I am pretty sure if we replaced it with a UDA there would be very limited breakage.

Yep, I actually considered using it for documentation, but never bothered.

On 9/14/2022 4:00 AM, jmh530 wrote:
> You argue about compiler-complexity AND user-complexity on this topic. Sometimes one, sometimes the other. It's not always consistent and some can find it confusing.

These things do not have right and wrong answers, and aspects are often contradictory.

It's true of most non-trivial things.

On 9/12/2022 7:48 AM, jmh530 wrote:
> I don't recall anyone mentioning the removal of complex/imaginary numbers, but the issues are the same.

I was surprised at the pretty much non-existent pushback on removing them, even though it did carry with it the loss of the convenient syntax for them.

On 9/13/2022 6:52 AM, Don Allen wrote:
> So while I don't have a personal use for binary literals, clearly others have. But Walter sees an internal cost to the compiler.
The internal cost to the compiler is pretty small as these things go. It's more the cognitive cost of a larger language.

On 15/09/2022 7:34 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> I was surprised at the pretty much non-existent pushback on removing them, even though it did carry with it the loss of the convenient syntax for them.

At some point we need to look into what C is doing and sync back up with them.

C23 has an awful lot of new things that we can't represent right now.

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 19:30:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/14/2022 4:00 AM, jmh530 wrote:
>> You argue about compiler-complexity AND user-complexity on this topic. Sometimes one, sometimes the other. It's not always consistent and some can find it confusing.
>
> These things do not have right and wrong answers, and aspects are often contradictory.
>
> It's true of most non-trivial things.

As I wrote before, the cognitive load of remembering the correct include is worse than the cost of the feature because it exist in other languages. But no other language uses std.conv.

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 19:34:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/12/2022 7:48 AM, jmh530 wrote:
>> I don't recall anyone mentioning the removal of complex/imaginary numbers, but the issues are the same.
>
> I was surprised at the pretty much non-existent pushback on removing them, even though it did carry with it the loss of the convenient syntax for them.

I had some code that broke. It took maybe 15 minutes or a half an hour to fix. I don't recall there being a preview switch for that, but if not it might have been good to have one.

I agree it was a convenient syntax, but most people probably agreed that it wasn't pulling its weight.