DIP27 available for destruction
Andrei Alexandrescu
SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Tue Feb 26 19:46:45 PST 2013
On 2/26/13 10:33 PM, kenji hara wrote:
> 2013/2/27 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com
> <mailto:jmdavisProg at gmx.com>>
>
> I believe that both Walter and Andrei have said on multiple
> occasions that one
> of C's big mistakes was conflating function names with their
> addresses, and
> this DIP appears to be trying to do exactly that. And I honestly
> don't see
> what it buys us. It just makes the situation with parenless function
> calls
> worse. At least right now, it's clear when you're dealing with a
> function
> pointer or a parenless function call. With this DIP, it wouldn't be.
>
>
> I agree with Jonathan. DIP27 is a recurrence of C's mistake.
> It would remove a language future, and breaking much existing code, and
> then introduces nothing. Certainly compiler implementation may be
> simplified a little by doing it, however it is too small benefit than
> the D world destruction.
>
> Kenji Hara
Agreed. I think it's safe to close it.
Andrei
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list