GC.calloc

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 18:00:03 UTC, David wrote:
> Why doesn't GC.calloc follow the function signature of 
> stdc.calloc?
>
> calloc(num, size_per_element)
>
> I think this should be changed, if no reason speaks against it, 
> I can
> look into changing this.
> Of course this will break backwards compatability, but I think 
> this is
> worth it?

We wont think anything if you don't give us something to think 
about. You may start by explaining why you think it is better.