That works for me. The only downside I see with this is for others reading the package. If you see “append” being called somewhere, normally you would assume it’s the builtin one but in this case it’s the package defined one which is slightly less intuitive but honestly it doesn’t make enough of a difference to justify adding a new feature.
I think by “better alternative”, they mean for IDEs like vscode, neovim and helix which rely on an lsp to provide basic functionality like go to definition, symbol rename, and autocomplete.
It’s great if you use sublime text and get those for free but others have to rely on ols to get those features. Not everyone will want to use sublime to write odin so if ols didn’t exist they would probably be using a different language, and there are probably many who don’t use odin because ols is too buggy.
I know language adoption isn’t a primary goal for odin but a good lsp would go a long way.
noob here
So what’s wrong with ‘pattern matching’ that nearly every systems programming language designer seems to have a visceral reaction to it? This is like the third language where I’ve seen the designer react that way.
1 Like