www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: Kill implicit joining of adjacent strings

reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Now this discussion seems settled enough, so I may summarize its results a
little (please fix this list if you see an error):

- Andrei Alexandrescu has said this idea doesn't harm but he sees not much
evidence this is a problem in C/C++.
- Don has not said how much he likes the idea, but he has shown no technical
opposition against it, and I think he may accept it.
- Sean Kelly sees no technical problems in the idea, and I think he accepts it.
- Steven Schveighoffer likes the idea.
- Vladimir Panteleev likes the idea.
- Manfred Nowak seems to like the idea.
- Michel Fortin seems to like this idea.
- Yao G. is opposed (but he has shown to not consider the usage of ~ to concat
lines).
- dennis luehring likes the idea.
- klickverbot agrees with the idea.
- Jonathan M Davis agrees with the idea.
- Rainer Deyke has suggested a problem that may be solved or doesn't exists.
- spir seems now more or less OK with the idea, but I am not sure.
- so seems a OK with the idea now, but I am not sure.
- I like this idea.
- Brad Roberts has expressed no opinion on the topic.

On average the answers seem positive. So, Walter are you willing to deprecate
automatic joining of adjacent strings (and later turn it into a syntax error,
the error message may suggest to add a ~)?

Bye,
bearophile
Nov 11 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/11/10 3:33 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Now this discussion seems settled enough, so I may summarize its results a
little (please fix this list if you see an error):

 - Andrei Alexandrescu has said this idea doesn't harm but he sees not much
evidence this is a problem in C/C++.
 - Don has not said how much he likes the idea, but he has shown no technical
opposition against it, and I think he may accept it.
 - Sean Kelly sees no technical problems in the idea, and I think he accepts it.
 - Steven Schveighoffer likes the idea.
 - Vladimir Panteleev likes the idea.
 - Manfred Nowak seems to like the idea.
 - Michel Fortin seems to like this idea.
 - Yao G. is opposed (but he has shown to not consider the usage of ~ to concat
lines).
 - dennis luehring likes the idea.
 - klickverbot agrees with the idea.
 - Jonathan M Davis agrees with the idea.
 - Rainer Deyke has suggested a problem that may be solved or doesn't exists.
 - spir seems now more or less OK with the idea, but I am not sure.
 - so seems a OK with the idea now, but I am not sure.
 - I like this idea.
 - Brad Roberts has expressed no opinion on the topic.

 On average the answers seem positive. So, Walter are you willing to deprecate
automatic joining of adjacent strings (and later turn it into a syntax error,
the error message may suggest to add a ~)?

Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that list? Andrei
Nov 11 2010
next sibling parent Jimmy Cao <jcao219 gmail.com> writes:
--90e6ba539f3c8082180494d006f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Freshly added to the normal-priority queue!
Thank goodness.

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <
SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 11/11/10 3:33 PM, bearophile wrote:

 Now this discussion seems settled enough, so I may summarize its results a
 little (please fix this list if you see an error):

 - Andrei Alexandrescu has said this idea doesn't harm but he sees not much
 evidence this is a problem in C/C++.
 - Don has not said how much he likes the idea, but he has shown no
 technical opposition against it, and I think he may accept it.
 - Sean Kelly sees no technical problems in the idea, and I think he
 accepts it.
 - Steven Schveighoffer likes the idea.
 - Vladimir Panteleev likes the idea.
 - Manfred Nowak seems to like the idea.
 - Michel Fortin seems to like this idea.
 - Yao G. is opposed (but he has shown to not consider the usage of ~ to
 concat lines).
 - dennis luehring likes the idea.
 - klickverbot agrees with the idea.
 - Jonathan M Davis agrees with the idea.
 - Rainer Deyke has suggested a problem that may be solved or doesn't
 exists.
 - spir seems now more or less OK with the idea, but I am not sure.
 - so seems a OK with the idea now, but I am not sure.
 - I like this idea.
 - Brad Roberts has expressed no opinion on the topic.

 On average the answers seem positive. So, Walter are you willing to
 deprecate automatic joining of adjacent strings (and later turn it into a
 syntax error, the error message may suggest to add a ~)?

Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that list? Andrei

--90e6ba539f3c8082180494d006f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Freshly added to the normal-priority queue!<div>Thank goodness.<br><br><div= class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu= <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org" tar= get=3D"_blank">SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div></div><div>On 11/11/10 3:33 PM, be= arophile wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Now this discussion seems settled enough, so I may summarize its results a = little (please fix this list if you see an error):<br> <br> - Andrei Alexandrescu has said this idea doesn&#39;t harm but he sees not m= uch evidence this is a problem in C/C++.<br> - Don has not said how much he likes the idea, but he has shown no technica= l opposition against it, and I think he may accept it.<br> - Sean Kelly sees no technical problems in the idea, and I think he accepts= it.<br> - Steven Schveighoffer likes the idea.<br> - Vladimir Panteleev likes the idea.<br> - Manfred Nowak seems to like the idea.<br> - Michel Fortin seems to like this idea.<br> - Yao G. is opposed (but he has shown to not consider the usage of ~ to con= cat lines).<br> - dennis luehring likes the idea.<br> - klickverbot agrees with the idea.<br> - Jonathan M Davis agrees with the idea.<br> - Rainer Deyke has suggested a problem that may be solved or doesn&#39;t ex= ists.<br> - spir seems now more or less OK with the idea, but I am not sure.<br> - so seems a OK with the idea now, but I am not sure.<br> - I like this idea.<br> - Brad Roberts has expressed no opinion on the topic.<br> <br> On average the answers seem positive. So, Walter are you willing to depreca= te automatic joining of adjacent strings (and later turn it into a syntax e= rror, the error message may suggest to add a ~)?<br> </blockquote> <br></div></div> Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things that= Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that list?<br><= font color=3D"#888888"> <br> Andrei<br> </font></blockquote></div><br> </div> --90e6ba539f3c8082180494d006f6--
Nov 11 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrei:

 Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things 
 that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that list?

I don't know, I think you and Walter are able to judge the relative priorities of things. In Bugzilla I have about twenty small/tiny breaking changes like this one, some of them are probably already virtually closed. This specific one was sleeping for few months there. If you want to change little but non backwards compatible things in D2 (like disallowing implicit concatenation of strings) you need to do it sooner, because when all people have written lot of D2 code you can't remove/change features any more. So while this bug report is much less important than additive features like for example named function arguments, it has higher priority, because named arguments may be added later, in D3. Seeing how those bug reports are getting dust, I'd like to show them here one by one (because I have shown them all together already, with no answers), so they may receive some attention, like this one. One year from now most or all those very small enhancement requests will probably be useless, and worth closing as WONTFIX with a message like "it's too much late to change this". I'm doing my best to help remove some warts from D2. Bye, bearophile
Nov 11 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things 
 that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that list?

For once, I agree with Bearophile. The adjacent string concatenation was a very very early feature, and the ~ completely supplants it. While I don't think it causes many problems, it's a pointless redundancy and should be removed.
Nov 11 2010
next sibling parent Marianne Gagnon <auria.mg gmail.com> writes:
 For once, I agree with Bearophile. The adjacent string concatenation was a
very 
 very early feature, and the ~ completely supplants it. While I don't think it 
 causes many problems, it's a pointless redundancy and should be removed.

Agreed; it seems to be a minor change, and the issue of code compatibility is a guenine one, the later such changes are done, the more code breakage occurs. So receive my humble +1 :) -- Auria
Nov 11 2010
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/11/10 5:59 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things
 that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that
 list?

For once, I agree with Bearophile. The adjacent string concatenation was a very very early feature, and the ~ completely supplants it. While I don't think it causes many problems, it's a pointless redundancy and should be removed.

I agree too but there are many similarly good ideas (some of which from himself) that are older. Andrei
Nov 11 2010
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 11/11/10 5:59 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things
 that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that
 list?

For once, I agree with Bearophile. The adjacent string concatenation was a very very early feature, and the ~ completely supplants it. While I don't think it causes many problems, it's a pointless redundancy and should be removed.

I agree too but there are many similarly good ideas (some of which from himself) that are older. Andrei

This isn't new. I remember this one being discussed about seven years ago.
Nov 12 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/12/10 1:06 AM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 11/11/10 5:59 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things
 that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that
 list?

For once, I agree with Bearophile. The adjacent string concatenation was a very very early feature, and the ~ completely supplants it. While I don't think it causes many problems, it's a pointless redundancy and should be removed.

I agree too but there are many similarly good ideas (some of which from himself) that are older. Andrei

This isn't new. I remember this one being discussed about seven years ago.

Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates literals first. Andrei
Nov 12 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/12/10 4:41 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 04:53:23 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 11/12/10 1:06 AM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 11/11/10 5:59 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of
 things
 that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that
 list?

For once, I agree with Bearophile. The adjacent string concatenation was a very very early feature, and the ~ completely supplants it. While I don't think it causes many problems, it's a pointless redundancy and should be removed.

I agree too but there are many similarly good ideas (some of which from himself) that are older. Andrei

This isn't new. I remember this one being discussed about seven years ago.

Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates literals first.

You mean *should* concatenate literals first? I think currently it doesn't. -Steve

Yah, "shall" as they say in Standardese :o). Currently it doesn't, but you get to catenate literals by juxtaposition. For example, this expression: s ~ "def" "ghi" when naively changed to s ~ "def" ~ "ghi" will do more work than before. We must avoid that. Andrei
Nov 12 2010
parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrei:

 will do more work than before. We must avoid that.

I have added a note at the bottom of the relative bug report. Bye, bearophile
Nov 12 2010
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 12/11/2010 09:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
<snip>
 Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the
 associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates
 literals first.

You mean make ~ right-associative? I think this'll break more code than it fixes. But implementing a compiler optimisation so that var ~ ctc ~ ctc is processed as var ~ (ctc ~ ctc), _in those cases where they're equivalent_, would be sensible. ctc = compile-time constant Stewart.
Nov 13 2010
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon:

 You mean make ~ right-associative?  I think this'll break more code than 
 it fixes.
 
 But implementing a compiler optimisation so that var ~ ctc ~ ctc is 
 processed as var ~ (ctc ~ ctc), _in those cases where they're 
 equivalent_, would be sensible.
 
 ctc = compile-time constant
 
 Stewart.

It may be good to add that comment here, if you want I may add it myself: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3827 Bye, bearophile
Nov 13 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?IkrDqXLDtG1lIE0uIEJlcmdlciI=?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 On 12/11/2010 09:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 <snip>
 Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the
 associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates
 literals first.

You mean make ~ right-associative? I think this'll break more code tha=

 it fixes.
=20

problem: ctc ~ ctc ~ var would not work. What is needed is for ctc ~ ctc ~ var ~ ctc ~ ctc to be processed as ((ctc ~ ctc) ~ var) ~ (ctc ~ ctc).
 ctc =3D compile-time constant
=20

Jerome --=20 mailto:jeberger free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Nov 14 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
 On 12/11/2010 09:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 <snip>
 Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the
 associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates
 literals first.

You mean make ~ right-associative? I think this'll break more code than it fixes. But implementing a compiler optimisation so that var ~ ctc ~ ctc is processed as var ~ (ctc ~ ctc), _in those cases where they're equivalent_, would be sensible.

Andrei's right. This is not about making it right-associative. It is about defining in the language that: ((a ~ b) ~ c) is guaranteed to produce the same result as: (a ~ (b ~ c)) Unfortunately, the language cannot make such a guarantee in the face of operator overloading. But it can do it for cases where operator overloading is not in play.
Nov 19 2010
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 20/11/2010 05:31, Walter Bright wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 On 12/11/2010 09:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 <snip>
 Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the
 associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates
 literals first.

You mean make ~ right-associative? I think this'll break more code than it fixes. But implementing a compiler optimisation so that var ~ ctc ~ ctc is processed as var ~ (ctc ~ ctc), _in those cases where they're equivalent_, would be sensible.

Andrei's right. This is not about making it right-associative. It is about defining in the language that: ((a ~ b) ~ c) is guaranteed to produce the same result as: (a ~ (b ~ c)) Unfortunately, the language cannot make such a guarantee in the face of operator overloading. But it can do it for cases where operator overloading is not in play.

So if you have the code: (a ~ b ~ c) and b and c are strings, but a is not a string (nor has a toString method, nor implicit convertion), but has a overload of the append operator, then b and c will not be joined in compile-time, according to that? -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Nov 29 2010
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/29/10 3:38 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 On 20/11/2010 05:31, Walter Bright wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 On 12/11/2010 09:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 <snip>
 Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the
 associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates
 literals first.

You mean make ~ right-associative? I think this'll break more code than it fixes. But implementing a compiler optimisation so that var ~ ctc ~ ctc is processed as var ~ (ctc ~ ctc), _in those cases where they're equivalent_, would be sensible.

Andrei's right. This is not about making it right-associative. It is about defining in the language that: ((a ~ b) ~ c) is guaranteed to produce the same result as: (a ~ (b ~ c)) Unfortunately, the language cannot make such a guarantee in the face of operator overloading. But it can do it for cases where operator overloading is not in play.

So if you have the code: (a ~ b ~ c) and b and c are strings, but a is not a string (nor has a toString method, nor implicit convertion), but has a overload of the append operator, then b and c will not be joined in compile-time, according to that?

That is correct. The compiler cannot infer that user-defined ~ is in fact associative. Andrei
Nov 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent dennis luehring <dl.soluz gmx.net> writes:
 Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things
 that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that list?

i think bearophil just tries to install an community-decision-process and the first post of this thread seems to feel right, all other dicussions ended "without" any result for the commmunity what about a process like that bearophile(and others) throws in an idea, dicuss it to the "end" and then comes an small aproval(summery) post like the first one here - after that all involed people should just say yes/no, and after that it should be clear if walter (as happend here) does like the idea and want to work on it (when time comes), but then it can be put on an more "official" wishlist - and think many of bearophils idea will get on this list this list is got then a prio from walter, and you and the others... D isn't missing of good ideas, missing library features etc. - we need an aproval process
Nov 12 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 04:53:23 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 11/12/10 1:06 AM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 11/11/10 5:59 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of  
 things
 that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that
 list?

For once, I agree with Bearophile. The adjacent string concatenation was a very very early feature, and the ~ completely supplants it. While I don't think it causes many problems, it's a pointless redundancy and should be removed.

I agree too but there are many similarly good ideas (some of which from himself) that are older. Andrei

This isn't new. I remember this one being discussed about seven years ago.

Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates literals first.

You mean *should* concatenate literals first? I think currently it doesn't. -Steve
Nov 12 2010
prev sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:11:54 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 11/11/10 3:33 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Now this discussion seems settled enough, so I may summarize its  
 results a little (please fix this list if you see an error):

 - Andrei Alexandrescu has said this idea doesn't harm but he sees not  
 much evidence this is a problem in C/C++.
 - Don has not said how much he likes the idea, but he has shown no  
 technical opposition against it, and I think he may accept it.
 - Sean Kelly sees no technical problems in the idea, and I think he  
 accepts it.
 - Steven Schveighoffer likes the idea.
 - Vladimir Panteleev likes the idea.
 - Manfred Nowak seems to like the idea.
 - Michel Fortin seems to like this idea.
 - Yao G. is opposed (but he has shown to not consider the usage of ~ to  
 concat lines).
 - dennis luehring likes the idea.
 - klickverbot agrees with the idea.
 - Jonathan M Davis agrees with the idea.
 - Rainer Deyke has suggested a problem that may be solved or doesn't  
 exists.
 - spir seems now more or less OK with the idea, but I am not sure.
 - so seems a OK with the idea now, but I am not sure.
 - I like this idea.
 - Brad Roberts has expressed no opinion on the topic.

 On average the answers seem positive. So, Walter are you willing to  
 deprecate automatic joining of adjacent strings (and later turn it into  
 a syntax error, the error message may suggest to add a ~)?

Let me ask a related question: if there were a priority list of things that Walter should be busy with, where would this feature be on that list?

Depends. If it's easy to fix, bang it out. If it's more involved, it should be low. I don't see this as a heavy hitter. I'd *much* rather see inout fixed. -Steve
Nov 12 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent dennis luehring <dl.soluz gmx.net> writes:
Am 12.11.2010 00:33, schrieb bearophile:
 Now this discussion seems settled enough, so I may summarize its results a
little (please fix this list if you see an error):

 - Andrei Alexandrescu has said this idea doesn't harm but he sees not much
evidence this is a problem in C/C++.
 - Don has not said how much he likes the idea, but he has shown no technical
opposition against it, and I think he may accept it.
 - Sean Kelly sees no technical problems in the idea, and I think he accepts it.
 - Steven Schveighoffer likes the idea.
 - Vladimir Panteleev likes the idea.
 - Manfred Nowak seems to like the idea.
 - Michel Fortin seems to like this idea.
 - Yao G. is opposed (but he has shown to not consider the usage of ~ to concat
lines).
 - dennis luehring likes the idea.
 - klickverbot agrees with the idea.
 - Jonathan M Davis agrees with the idea.
 - Rainer Deyke has suggested a problem that may be solved or doesn't exists.
 - spir seems now more or less OK with the idea, but I am not sure.
 - so seems a OK with the idea now, but I am not sure.
 - I like this idea.
 - Brad Roberts has expressed no opinion on the topic.

 On average the answers seem positive. So, Walter are you willing to deprecate
automatic joining of adjacent strings (and later turn it into a syntax error,
the error message may suggest to add a ~)?

 Bye,
 bearophile

thanks bearopile, i think you made the first step installing an maybe good working idea approval process - let people throw together their pros and cons, and then post an was-that-your-opinion-message that could ease the decision process for walter,andrei etc. alot - and you can tell others that walter,andrei,ect..... agreed with you're idea - that stops re-dicussions but the information,results must be published in an more official way digitalmars.com/d/reviews.html or something like that, not an hidden wiki-page somewhere or an personal page like the inoffical wishlist
Nov 12 2010
prev sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 11/11/2010 23:33, bearophile wrote:
 Now this discussion seems settled enough, so I may summarize its results a
little (please fix this list if you see an error):

 - Andrei Alexandrescu has said this idea doesn't harm but he sees not much
evidence this is a problem in C/C++.
 - Don has not said how much he likes the idea, but he has shown no technical
opposition against it, and I think he may accept it.
 - Sean Kelly sees no technical problems in the idea, and I think he accepts it.
 - Steven Schveighoffer likes the idea.
 - Vladimir Panteleev likes the idea.
 - Manfred Nowak seems to like the idea.
 - Michel Fortin seems to like this idea.
 - Yao G. is opposed (but he has shown to not consider the usage of ~ to concat
lines).
 - dennis luehring likes the idea.
 - klickverbot agrees with the idea.
 - Jonathan M Davis agrees with the idea.
 - Rainer Deyke has suggested a problem that may be solved or doesn't exists.
 - spir seems now more or less OK with the idea, but I am not sure.
 - so seems a OK with the idea now, but I am not sure.
 - I like this idea.
 - Brad Roberts has expressed no opinion on the topic.

 On average the answers seem positive. So, Walter are you willing to deprecate
automatic joining of adjacent strings (and later turn it into a syntax error,
the error message may suggest to add a ~)?

 Bye,
 bearophile

For the record, I am also okay with the idea. (mostly because it simplifies the language). But like Andrei mentioned, the importance of this is so, so minor. Fortunately the implementation effort is also very low, so let's just check there is no unintended consequences, and move on. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Nov 29 2010