Better branding of -betterC

Dibyendu Majumdar d.majumdar at
Mon Nov 16 20:34:07 UTC 2020

On Monday, 16 November 2020 at 18:19:56 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:

> Is this "Laser-D" supposed to be a separate language on just a 
> project to document betterC?

My plan is document a subset of D that is maybe even more 
restricted than Better C - because I think not every feature of D 
is needed.

I would like to turn off features in the compiler to reflect the 
language definition, but this may be too much effort. But one 
thing I want to guarantee is that all Laser-D programs will also 
be D programs.

> If you really want to make -betterC better, there are still 
> noticable flaws with it - for example you still can't use 
> std.format at compile time in -betterC mode 
> (

If I am not mistaken there are few tests that cover the Better C 
option - so there are probably many bugs lurking there... I hope 
not but I already found that despite what the doc says, creating 
C++ classes in Better C does not appear to work (doc isn't clear 
though about whether you can only interface to C++ classes or 
create them too).

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list