Better branding of -betterC
d.majumdar at gmail.com
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
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