C compatibility

[BCS]

Hello grauzone,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to Jacob,
>> 
>>> I've read posts in several threads complaining about the C
>>> compatibility, the latest was the % operator. Other complains are
>>> that you can use the C syntax for pointers, arrays and function
>>> pointers. Also the "Case range statement" thread that complained
>>> (among other things) about fall through in switch statements.
>>> 
>>> Why not the drop this C compatibility in general case
>>> 
>> One thing Walter is adement about is that copy-n-paste C code must
>> run correctly (i.e the same) in D or not compile. As for the C style
>> type syntax, I'd be willing to see that go en-total.
>> 
> But what for?
> - For headers, you can't include use the C source directly, because
> there are far too many preprocessor directives. Also, headers consist
> mostly of declarations, and not function bodies.

granted

> - Normal code you can simply compile in C and link to D. This works
> perfectly fine. There's no real reason to port it to D. And who ports
> large portions of code from C to D anyway?

Linking C code can get a bit cludgy when you actually go to use it because 
of type system miss matches (e.g. C's char* vs. D's char[]). Also cross language 
inlining doesn't happen. If it's a small block of code, <~200 LOC, I'd consider 
copying the code and pushing the types thought. If you can count on the correct-or-error 
bit, this is a lot easier.