Deprecate C style declerations?

[Bruno Medeiros]

Don Clugston wrote:
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> "Chris Nicholson-Sauls" <ibisbasenji at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:emcekr$2sah$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Should we do this?  As in cause:
>>>>>
>>>>> # int foo[];
>>>>> # int bar*;
>>>>>
>>>>> And others to issue deprecation errors.  I think it would be a good 
>>>>> idea, and shouldn't break extern(C) declarations, so long as one 
>>>>> doesn't try to mix types.  (I don't think we can mix them in the C 
>>>>> way at all, anyhow. Haven't tried, though.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree, though
>>>>
>>>> int bar*;
>>>>
>>>> isn't legal any way you slice it, D or C.
>>>>
>>>> I'd also be interested in phasing out the C-style function pointer 
>>>> syntax:
>>>>
>>>> int (*foo)(int, int);
>>>> =>
>>>> int function(int, int) foo;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Or else change the rules such that array/pointer decoration applies 
>>>>> to the variable and not the type -- and correct me if I'm wrong 
>>>>> about this not being the current behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> # int num   ,
>>>>> #     arr[] ,
>>>>> #     ptr*  ;
>>>>>
>>>>> vs
>>>>>
>>>>> # int   num ;
>>>>> # int[] arr ;
>>>>> # int*  ptr ;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that C "feature" was dropped in D because it makes multiple 
>>>> declarations harder to read.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hear-hear! No need for C's crummy array syntax. Writing support for 
>>> outputting the right C types in bcd.gen was a huge PITA because of it 
>>> X_X
>>>
>>> Hear-hear particularly to deprecating the C function syntax. That 
>>> syntax makes me want to gag myself with a spoon.
>>>
>>>  - Gregor Richards
>>
>> Hear hear ..!
>> I know how you feel!!
>> I tried to open this subject before, but didn't get anywhere ..
> 
> I agree, too -- the main reason for retaining it was to simplify 
> conversion from C code to D, but
> (a) we now have ctod, so it can be automated in most cases;
> (b) in my experience (eg manually translating the Windows headers), it's 
> trivial to translate anyway, and it gives significant benefits to clarity.
> 
> The really weird thing about the C syntax is that you can define a 
> *function type* (not just function pointers). There's no D equivalent to 
> that, although I'm not aware of any uses of the construct.
> 

"There's no D equivalent to that", huh, how come not? D has an 
equivalent, in fact last time we ("we" meaning several people) talked 
about this we were discussing whether D should retain this C aspect or 
not: (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/learn/4118.html)
Or did I again miss some kind of difference?

> We're building up a list of features that should be deprecated:
> * 'length' inside slices.
> * C function syntax
> * C declaration syntax in general
> 
> I'd also add:
> * some alternative to #line that doesn't waste the '#' symbol on such a 
> rarely-used feature.
> 
> And there are probably a few more I've forgotten about.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D