GC.calloc

[David]

Am 17.07.2013 20:17, schrieb 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.

Well the obvious reason is, it will have the same api as the stdc.calloc

GC.calloc(num, Data.sizeof) will not do what
stdc.calloc(num, Data.sizeof) does

If you naivly assume they do the same (because that compiles), you will
end up getting rather strange segmentation faults.

D tries to be C compatible a lot, I heared it also in someones talk
recently, that this is indeed a goal, something that works in C and D
has to do the same, in this case GC.calloc does something entirely
different.