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

[Sebastián E. Peyrott]

In article <e0mj1h$fct$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Lars Ivar Igesund says...
>
>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.

I believe there's no compelling reason to have them removed right now.
Deprecating them and putting a clear notice in the docs is the right way to go,
IMO, if Walter's certain that they'll need to be removed at some point in the
future. For now, if people don't like them, they can just avoid them...

--
Sebastián.