digitalmars.D - Re: Implicit enum conversions are a stupid PITA
- bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Mar 26 2010
- "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Mar 26 2010
Nick Sabalausky:I fear it's probably too late for that for D, but I do like it very much. If I ever make a C-style langauge myself, I'll definitely consider something like that.
Adding to dmd a few warnings activated by a compiler switch that help avoid bugs in porting C->D2 is an additive change, it's fully backwards compatible, so it can be added with no problems, if there's desire and time to implement it. Bye, bearophile
Mar 26 2010
"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote in message news:hoif0r$v8c$1 digitalmars.com...Nick Sabalausky:I fear it's probably too late for that for D, but I do like it very much. If I ever make a C-style langauge myself, I'll definitely consider something like that.
Adding to dmd a few warnings activated by a compiler switch that help avoid bugs in porting C->D2 is an additive change, it's fully backwards compatible, so it can be added with no problems, if there's desire and time to implement it.
My understanding of the orignal suggestion was to have those optional warnings for the purpose of freeing the rest of D's design from the "C code must behave the same or error" restriction. I'd love for that to happen, I'm just doubtful that it would, that's all.
Mar 26 2010