[Issue 8727] __traits(is_reserved_word, "") ?

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8727


Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jmdavisProg at gmx.com


--- Comment #4 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> 2012-09-26 10:15:44 PDT ---
> I don't want to hijack this pull request into off topic discussion, but is
foreach_reverse *really* scheduled for deprecation?

I haven't gotten a clear answer on that. I don't think that there's much
question that if we were completely redoing things, it wouldn't be in the
language, and there's a definite contingent who want it gone. But I don't know
whether Walter intends to axe it or not. AFAIK, no definitive decision was made
on it. It's not on the list of features to be deprecated on dlang.org:

http://dlang.org/deprecate.html

There's probably a good chance that foreach_reverse will cease to work with
delegates at some point even if it's kept, because it does exactly the same
thing as foreach for delegates, making it a source of bugs. But there's
probably a good chance that foreach_reverse is here to stay simply to avoid
breaking code even if it's certain that we don't want it.

Regardless, if you want someone like Walter who would know for sure what
foreach_reverse's current fate is supposed to be, you'll probably have to post
in the newsgroup (and short of Walter or Andrei saying something, I don't know
if you can know for certain what the current situation is, since it's Walter's
decision, and I'm not aware of him making a public decision on it).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------