4 ms·
That is not a step toward simpler code. Under that proposal, people looking at your code will have to look up definitions of basic things that ought to be keyw
by xamuel 9y ago
That is not a step toward simpler code. Under that proposal, people looking at your code will have to look up definitions of basic things that ought to be keywords---like "interface"---in order to reason about the code.
- jcelerier 9y ago> Under that proposal, people looking at your code will have to look up definitions of basic things that ought to be keywords---like "interface"---in order to reason about the code. That's a good thing: now you can refer to 20 lines of code instead of 15 pages of standardese to understand what happens.
- xamuel 9y agoI can learn the 15 pages of standardese and it'll apply uniformly to every program. The 20 lines will contain some subtle surprise at the worst possible time.
- jcelerier 9y ago> I can learn the 15 pages of standardese and it'll apply uniformly to every program. That's assuming the compilers implementors had the same interpretation than you. With code, there is much less room for interpretation.
- nikbackm 9y agoNot really a problem, if a "basic thing" is common enough you just put it into a library. Maybe even the C++ standard library. The "interface" definition should probably qualify for that.