if(arr) now a warning

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 1 May 2015 at 09:54:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I've had the mispleasure several times of reaching back to 
> update some older D code of mine, that works fine, and finding 
> not only will it not compile, I have to re-architect parts of 
> it.
>
> The situation was so bad I wound up creating:
>
>     https://github.com/DigitalMars/undeaD
>
> and if *I* find this annoying, irritating, disheartening, etc., 
> I can only imagine how others feel about it.
>

Why is that a valid argument AGAINST the change, while the exact 
same argument was not valid the other way around. You were 
confused writing the doc in the first place, and if *You* find it 
confusing, you should be able to imagine how others feel about it.

I'm sorry, but it is just backward rationalization.

> Imagine you find some cool D library, download it, and find it 
> doesn't compile. How many of you are going to fix it? Or are 
> you just going to chuck it to /dev/null?
>
> How many users have we lost because of this?
>
> This really blows. And things like that isnan => isNaN really 
> has GOT TO STOP. Just today I found it broke some older piece 
> of code I had that's perfectly correct.
>

This breaks code without fixing anything. So, because of some 
stupid change have been made in the past, that mean that all 
change should be avoided ? That is once again bogus logic.

> We need to be working on things that MATTER. What happens with 
> every Reddit post about D? No matter the topic, it always 
> becomes about D not being usable without the GC.
>

This change expose bugs. It does matter. isnan vs isNaN does not. 
It does not matter. This is not about isNan or about the GC, so 
there is no point in bringing these subjects into the 
conversation unless the goal is to make everything confusing and 
OT.

> A big piece of the fix for that is going through Phobos and 
> fixing code that returns gc allocated arrays with algorithms 
> that return ranges.
>

True, but OT.

> Why am I the only one working on that? I don't remember anyone 
> having a problem with isnan.
>

Red herring. This is not about isnan, never was, never will be. 
You are the one trying to bring that up.