• bobef <bobef abv-nospam.bg> May 14 2009
• BCS <none anon.com> May 14 2009
• Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> May 14 2009
• dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> May 14 2009
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> May 14 2009
• dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> May 14 2009
• Rainer Deyke <rainerd eldwood.com> May 14 2009
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> May 14 2009
• Don <nospam nospam.com> May 15 2009

bobef <bobef abv-nospam.bg> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

 I wrote a brief article which should help:
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/migrate-to-shared.html



__gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello bobef,

 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 I wrote a brief article which should help:
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/migrate-to-shared.html
 


 


I think that's the point: they look ugly because they are ugly.

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:

BCS, el 14 de mayo a las 16:48 me escribiste:
 Hello bobef,
 
Walter Bright Wrote:
I wrote a brief article which should help:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/migrate-to-shared.html




 I think that's the point: they look ugly because they are ugly.


I prefer normal keywords for standard things (keywords or symbols starting
with __ are historically reserved for compiler specific features or even
private stuff in Python). For __gshared I agree that it's something ugly
and it's fine if it looks ugly.

But __traits?! Come on! __traits is beutiful, it deserves a beutiful
keyword ;)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llucax gmail.com)'s article
 BCS, el 14 de mayo a las 16:48 me escribiste:
 Hello bobef,

Walter Bright Wrote:
I wrote a brief article which should help:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/migrate-to-shared.html




 I think that's the point: they look ugly because they are ugly.


 with __ are historically reserved for compiler specific features or even
 private stuff in Python). For __gshared I agree that it's something ugly
 and it's fine if it looks ugly.
 But __traits?! Come on! __traits is beutiful, it deserves a beutiful
 keyword ;)


True.  I think I subconsciously avoid anything with an __ in front of it because
to me the connotation of an __ is "Only works if the stars align just right.
We're trying to scare you away from this feature for a reason.  Here be
monsters."
 If traits, excuse me, __traits, is stable enough not to deserve this
connotation,
then it absolutely deserves its own keyword.

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to dsimcha,

 True.  I think I subconsciously avoid anything with an __ in front of
 it because to me the connotation of an __ is "Only works if the stars
 align just right. We're trying to scare you away from this feature for 
 a reason.  Here be monsters."


like __gshared? <g>

 If traits, excuse me, __traits, is stable enough not to deserve this
 connotation, then it absolutely deserves its own keyword.


I think traits should get first class treatment as it really isn't being 
used as the backdoor hack that the __ implies.

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from BCS (ao pathlink.com)'s article
 Reply to dsimcha,
 True.  I think I subconsciously avoid anything with an __ in front of
 it because to me the connotation of an __ is "Only works if the stars
 align just right. We're trying to scare you away from this feature for
 a reason.  Here be monsters."




Exactly, except __gshared deserves this treatment.

Rainer Deyke <rainerd eldwood.com> writes:

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 I prefer normal keywords for standard things (keywords or symbols starting
 with __ are historically reserved for compiler specific features or even
 private stuff in Python). For __gshared I agree that it's something ugly
 and it's fine if it looks ugly.
 
 But __traits?! Come on! __traits is beutiful, it deserves a beutiful
 keyword ;)


I like the idea of using __ for temporary, transitional, and
experimental keywords.  Using __ has several advantages here:
  - It's unlikely to collide with existing identifiers.
  - You can create as many of them as you want without worrying about
namespace pollution.
  - It's ugly as a reminder that the feature is temporary, transitional,
or experimental.
  - It's easy to search for and easy to globally replace with a real
keyword.

Eventually all features using __ keywords should be removed, renamed, or
modified in such as way that they do not require a keyword at all.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd eldwood.com

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

bobef wrote:
 __gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)


They're only allowed in safe mode, and are meant to inspire people to 
use them only when there's no other choice. Hence the unattractiveness <g>

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 bobef wrote:
 __gshared, __etc. These look ugly IMHO. :)


 They're only allowed in safe mode, and are meant to inspire people to 
 use them only when there's no other choice. Hence the unattractiveness <g>


Agreed. Yet as others have said, __traits deserves a beautiful keyword.