Porting D2 code to D1
Jason House
jason.james.house at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 06:27:00 PDT 2008
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> "Jason House" <jason.james.house at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g5lib0$23ju$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> > I can't imagine any library maintainer being willing to do that just for
> > portability between D versions. It'd be nice if D2 code could have
> > something like version(d1){} and version(d2){} for this purpose. That'd
> > then allow the d2 compiler to ignore version(d1){} and allow the converter
> > to strip out version(d2){}
>
> I've always been dubious about using the version construct for various
> language versions. It's great for program options, but since the stuff in
> the version block has to be syntactically legal, it makes it worthless for
> supporting multiple versions of D.
Who says what's in version(d1) has to be legal D1 code? ;) I'd vote that the code would still look like D2 code and would be converted in the same way as all other code.
> It's almost like another construct is needed. I like what you're thinking
> but I don't know if using the version construct is the right way to do it.
If that construct is restricted to the converter (ie. ignore eliminate version(d2){}), I think nobody will complain.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list