Ghosting a language feature

12345swordy alexanderheistermann at
Mon Sep 21 13:32:16 UTC 2020

On Monday, 21 September 2020 at 10:39:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Personally, I believe C and C++ have gone too far with 
> backwards compatibility, as some of that stuff just cripples 
> things going forward.

Hoho, that not even the worst part. You have dinosaur programmers 
keep programming in c++98 edition irregardless of the current c++ 
version. I remember cpp experts begging people to program c++ in 
a modern way,  but nope. You have college professor/programmer 
dinosaurs teach/program in c++98.

Regardless "legacy feature" is the right way to go, as the name 
implies it is legacy. Give it compilers warnings indicating that 
you not suppose to write new code with it.

If I were you I would mark alias this as a legacy feature, and 
introduce an dip that introduce implicit conversions in a very 
restrictive matter so that it could be replace properly.(Or we 
could think outside the box and introduce extended constructors, 
to replace the need for implicit conversions)


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list