length's type.

[Arafel]

On 8/2/24 16:00, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> I'm asking, why is the default C compatibility (of all things) rather 
> than "safety that I can override if I need to make it faster" ?

I'm sure there are more experienced people here that will be able to 
answer better, but as far as I remember, the policy has been like this 
since times immemorial:

> D code that happens to be valid C code as well should either behave exactly like C, or not compile at all.

I can't find a quote in the official documentation right now, though.

IIRC, there are a couple of specific situations where this is not the 
case, but I think this is the answer to your question ("why?").

You can well disagree with this policy, and there are probably many good 
reasons for that, but that's probably a deeper discussion.