• Meta (19/19) May 12 Hello, I've been working on a couple different DIPs that propose
• Monkyyy (3/6) May 12 I think dip 2 is far more important, dip 1 has work arounds and I
• Meta (3/10) May 12 Please leave your feedback in the respective threads I linked.
• Basile B. (26/37) May 13 I'll drop a comment here anyway because it doesn't fit to the DIP

Meta <jared771 gmail.com> writes:

Hello, I've been working on a couple different DIPs that propose 
various enhancements to D.

1. Implicit Type Template Instantiation via Constructors with 
Dennis Korpel:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/wxfvbvutqjwvfrvuksua forum.dlang.org

2. Tuple Unpacking Syntax with Timon Gehr and Nick Trealeven:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mjzhwbwuvnfqimwazzxq forum.dlang.org

DIP 1 has gotten a little bit of feedback, but not much, and DIP 
2 was just posted today. If you have an interest in either of 
these features and want to see them in D, it would be greatly 
appreciated if you could leave comments in either thread so we 
can get a feel for whether these DIPs are worth pushing through 
the proposal process.

**Note that DIP 1 is in the DIP Drafts forum, and DIP 2 is in the 
DIP Ideas forum. The regular rules regarding feedback on DIPs in 
each forum apply.**

Without adequate feedback, they will likely not move forward, so 
please read them over and leave any thoughts you might have!

Thank you.

Monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:13:23 UTC, Meta wrote:
 Hello, I've been working on a couple different DIPs that 
 propose various enhancements to D.

 [...]

I think dip 2 is far more important, dip 1 has work arounds and I 
dislike the complexity around constructors as is

Meta <jared771 gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:23:27 UTC, Monkyyy wrote:
 On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:13:23 UTC, Meta wrote:
 Hello, I've been working on a couple different DIPs that 
 propose various enhancements to D.

 [...]

 I think dip 2 is far more important, dip 1 has work arounds and 
 I dislike the complexity around constructors as is

Please leave your feedback in the respective threads I linked. 
Thank you!

Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:

On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:29:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
 On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:23:27 UTC, Monkyyy wrote:
 On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:13:23 UTC, Meta wrote:
 Hello, I've been working on a couple different DIPs that 
 propose various enhancements to D.

 [...]

 I think dip 2 is far more important, dip 1 has work arounds 
 and I dislike the complexity around constructors as is

 Please leave your feedback in the respective threads I linked. 
 Thank you!

I'll drop a comment here anyway because it doesn't fit to the DIP 
section I think.

D really needs "variable declaration" as expressions. My opinion 
is that here you are again faced to a special case that the 
general case, i.e "variable declaration" as expression, would 
have solved.

```d
(auto a, auto b) = call(); // two VarDeclExp in the LHS
```

Let me enumerate all the cases we have now. You can exceptionally 
declare variable as expression in

- the IfStatement
- the WithStatement
- the WhileStatement
- the SwitchStatement

and now what is proposed is another case: as tuple element.

Cant just people open their eyes ? That language construct tends 
to become a well defined expression.

A little joke to finish, I occasionally use that thing to count 
if something new is worth:

```d
printf("for the %dnth time\n", static int count++);
```

Yeah that kind of things work when you have "variable 
declaration" as expression.