www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - CONSTipation

reply Regan Heath <regan netmail.co.nz> writes:
The NG is really getting blocked up with const ideas at the moment... it 
seems to me we need to actually settle down and try the new system 
before making judgements and trying to 'fix' it.

I for one can't really tell yet how the changes will affect the way I 
code my D, so it surprises me that we already have so many opinions on 
how good or bad it is.

Regan
Nov 30 2007
next sibling parent "Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:
"Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:fipi6o$98c$1 digitalmars.com...
 The NG is really getting blocked up with const ideas at the moment... it 
 seems to me we need to actually settle down and try the new system before 
 making judgements and trying to 'fix' it.

 I for one can't really tell yet how the changes will affect the way I code 
 my D, so it surprises me that we already have so many opinions on how good 
 or bad it is.

 Regan

There's no harm in talking about better ways to do it. If a proposed idea isn't sound, then by all means shoot it down. But there are certain aspects of the syntax that are obvious to me to be less than ideal, and I don't have to write a million lines of D code to see that.
Nov 30 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 11/30/07, Regan Heath <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote:
 The NG is really getting blocked up with const ideas at the moment... it
 seems to me we need to actually settle down and try the new system
 before making judgements and trying to 'fix' it.

I've been using D2.008 since the day it appeared. All of my comments are based on playing with it and using it, and trying to get the hang of how it behaves.
 I for one can't really tell yet how the changes will affect the way I
 code my D, so it surprises me that we already have so many opinions on
 how good or bad it is.

That's certainly true. But when you find that invariant(int) x = 0; x = 1; compiles and runs, it is surely reasonable to question whether there might be a better syntax for what are clearly /superb/ concepts.
Nov 30 2007
prev sibling parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Regan Heath wrote:

 The NG is really getting blocked up with const ideas at the moment... it
 seems to me we need to actually settle down and try the new system
 before making judgements and trying to 'fix' it.
 
 I for one can't really tell yet how the changes will affect the way I
 code my D, so it surprises me that we already have so many opinions on
 how good or bad it is.
 
 Regan

Half of my posts have a comment to the effect of "please document this better to avoid future confusion on this topic". Additionally, Walter has said before that people should not just say "this sucks" and instead should put on the designers hat and tell him how to fix it. That, of course, then opens up all of us to criticism and you get these long threads about how to redesign the language. When there's no concensus, we all accept that Walter's solution is good enough. I've tried to adopt that methodology because I believe it leads to a natural process that helps D mature as a language. It may be rare that we convince Walter (or a large fraction of the D community) that our ideas are correct, but that doesn't mean it has no value. I honestly think that the reception to this latest const has been much warmer than the last time. IIRC, there's only been two issues raised. One was how ambiguity over how const functions are specified, and the other (by me) was ambiguity over const and invariant storage classes relative to const and invariant types. I really do try to read every other post on the NG prior to making my own posts, and when I post I try to think about what I'm saying so I don't just spew out my random thoughts at the time. It took me a very long time to draft my "invariant doesn't apply to declared symbols" post. The content changed many times. I honestly consider it a point of confusion... where people could use stuff thinking one thing and then be surprised to realize it means something else.
Nov 30 2007