No more implicit conversion real->complex?!
kris
foo at bar.com
Thu Mar 23 20:54:18 PST 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> "kris" <foo at bar.com> wrote in message news:4420640A.7020208 at bar.com...
>
>>Even then, one might argue that "compatability" is actually there in name
>>only. Why would anyone convert a C program to D? I've yet to see an
>>extensive example of that; no doubt due to the extensive /incompatability/
>>of D with .h files (in truth, I haven't seen any examples)
>
>
> Take a look at std.md5, std.random, etc. For C++ to D, see std.regexp.
Thanks. Those do count as /any/ examples, but I called "extensive
example" doesn't cover such things as md5 and random. Regexp is a better
example yet is still just one 'module', thus avoiding much of the need
for numerous .H files. The latter is where the issue lies in what I was
referring to (as is stated above) ~ larger C projects such as say, an
XML parser or text editor, are a completely different kettle of fish.
The "compatability" with C is a nice check-mark, but IMO the only real
benefit is familiarity of syntax. For anything else, said
"compatability" is seriously limited; to the point of hubris vis-a-vis
larger C projects. That's just fine though; realistically, there's
precious little reason to do otherwise.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list