C-Style declarations, are they here to stay?!! Walter?

Lars Ivar Igesund larsivar at igesund.net
Sat Apr 1 11:07:21 PST 2006


AgentOrange wrote:

> In article <e0m3q5$30sh$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander says...
>>
>>Lars Ivar Igesund escribió:
>>> Carlos Santander wrote:
>>>> However, I think they should go, and as others think the same way, how
>>>> about a plan to kiss them good bye? What if it was clearly stated in
>>>> the D docs something like "C style declarations will be deprecated in
>>>> 2.0 and completely gone in 3.0"?
>>>>
>>> 
>>> No reason to keep them around that long, IMHO. :)
>>
>>My rationale is that D will need more code to be ported during that time
>>and allowing C style declarations will help that. However, as more and
>>more D code is written, the need for porting will fade.
>>
>>I don't know how clear I was because I don't know what else to say but I
>>feel it's incomplete.
>>
>>--
>>Carlos Santander Bernal
> 
> yeah, we want to break a whole bunch of code because someone doesnt quite
> understand c style declarations?
> 
> is this a joke?

No joke, agent. Although I do agree (after actually thinking about it) that
the syntax should go through deprecation before being removed. I can barely
see the usefulness in porting, but keeping this code around for any length,
will most likely lead to maintainance problems in the long run when the C
legacy is of less use in the D community. I think the conversion from
C-style to D-style should be made by those initially porting from C, not
those coming after who most likely have less of a C background. Making the
feature deprecated force the coder to think about it.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list