Sepplesox General

Looks like there are many improvements to Sepples, but I'm not so sure that some of them are improvements. I'm going to use my post to go over some of these things that I think are downfalls.

Particularly, I'm not so sure that the inheritance specifiers are a good thing. The syntax is ugly, and like Bjarne says about the casts: Perhaps people would reconsider using them because they're so ugly.^[1] One of the major points FOR using Sepples is its inheritance system, so I'm not precisely certain what they hope to resolve with this particular addition.

The lambdas are ugly. The new string literals don't cover the primary problem with string handling: It's a pain to convert and support more than one type of string. The alternate function declaration syntax is... while necessary without creating something new entirely, I imagine that it's going to be more confusing than not, though that's probably more of a personal preference.

The rest of the features, I'm either indifferent to or like, though remanding concepts to a technical report was a bad call, imo.

^{[1] - http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#static-cast}

C++ could be improved by:

– Loosening the requirement that references be nonnnull
– Modifying the syntax so that x =(T)y produces the same code as x = dynamic_cast<T>(y)
– Requiring all functions to be defined inside a namespace, and enforcing, at compile-time, a 1:1 correspondence between the namespace hierarchy and directory/source-file hierarchy.
– Removing C array support and making int *n = new int[3]; an alias for vector<int> n = new vector<int>(3);
- Similarly, making the literal "lol" a const string rather than const char *