• Don (10/10) Nov 15 2009 Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style
• Ellery Newcomer (2/15) Nov 15 2009 Yes please please please please please
• #ponce (6/19) Nov 15 2009 Yes please. There is no real use for:
• Andrei Alexandrescu (7/19) Nov 15 2009 I agree. Walter and I agreed that TDPL will not even mention the C-style...
• Frank Benoit (2/3) Nov 15 2009 finally yay!
• bearophile (8/15) Nov 15 2009 When you translate this C code:
• Jesse Phillips (2/2) Nov 15 2009 Thanks Don for keeping this page up to date:
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=c1lvaro_Castro-Castilla?= (2/15) Nov 16 2009 ++votes;
• Sean Kelly (2/14) Nov 16 2009 Yes, please!
• Trass3r (2/7) Nov 16 2009 Absolutely, do it.
• Bernard Helyer (2/4) Nov 22 2009 Yes please.

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style 
declarations. Supporting two styles of declarations just causes 
confusion, and AFAIK it doesn't have any benefits -- for example, it 
doesn't significantly help in porting code from C. D declarations are 
just better. And there are bugs such as this one, which seem to require 
abandoning C declarations:


function call

At the very least, can we make sure that TDPL doesn't commit us to 
retaining them forever?

Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:

Don wrote:
 Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style
 declarations. Supporting two styles of declarations just causes
 confusion, and AFAIK it doesn't have any benefits -- for example, it
 doesn't significantly help in porting code from C. D declarations are
 just better. And there are bugs such as this one, which seem to require
 abandoning C declarations:
 

 function call
 
 At the very least, can we make sure that TDPL doesn't commit us to
 retaining them forever?
 

Yes please please please please please

#ponce <aliloko gmail.com> writes:

Don Wrote:

 Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style 
 declarations. Supporting two styles of declarations just causes 
 confusion, and AFAIK it doesn't have any benefits -- for example, it 
 doesn't significantly help in porting code from C. D declarations are 
 just better. And there are bugs such as this one, which seem to require 
 abandoning C declarations:
 

 function call
 
 At the very least, can we make sure that TDPL doesn't commit us to 
 retaining them forever?
 

Yes please. There is no real use for:
int myvar[4];

instead of:
int[4] myvar;

and porting from C requires some rewriting anyway.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Don wrote:
 Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style 
 declarations. Supporting two styles of declarations just causes 
 confusion, and AFAIK it doesn't have any benefits -- for example, it 
 doesn't significantly help in porting code from C. D declarations are 
 just better. And there are bugs such as this one, which seem to require 
 abandoning C declarations:
 

 function call
 
 At the very least, can we make sure that TDPL doesn't commit us to 
 retaining them forever?

I agree. Walter and I agreed that TDPL will not even mention the C-style 
declarations for functions and arrays. There are a couple of other older 
features (such as "length" in array index expressions) that, again in 
agreement with Walter, TDPL does not mention and are on the road to 
deprecation.

Andrei

Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
 ...(such as "length" in array index expressions) ...

finally yay!

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

#ponce:

 Yes please. There is no real use for:
 int myvar[4];
 
 instead of:
 int[4] myvar;
 
 and porting from C requires some rewriting anyway.

When you translate this C code:
int a[4][10];

You have to remember to invert them to convert them to D:
int[10][4] a;

As time passes, D gets less and less similar to C. Eventually D will look like
Scala ;-)

Bye,
bearophile

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

Thanks Don for keeping this page up to date:


http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=c1lvaro_Castro-Castilla?= <alvcastro yahoo.es> writes:

Don Wrote:

 Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style 
 declarations. Supporting two styles of declarations just causes 
 confusion, and AFAIK it doesn't have any benefits -- for example, it 
 doesn't significantly help in porting code from C. D declarations are 
 just better. And there are bugs such as this one, which seem to require 
 abandoning C declarations:
 

 function call
 
 At the very least, can we make sure that TDPL doesn't commit us to 
 retaining them forever?
 

++votes;

Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:

Don Wrote:

 Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style 
 declarations. Supporting two styles of declarations just causes 
 confusion, and AFAIK it doesn't have any benefits -- for example, it 
 doesn't significantly help in porting code from C. D declarations are 
 just better. And there are bugs such as this one, which seem to require 
 abandoning C declarations:
 

 function call
 
 At the very least, can we make sure that TDPL doesn't commit us to 
 retaining them forever?

Yes, please!

Trass3r <mrmocool gmx.de> writes:

Don schrieb:
 Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style 
 declarations. Supporting two styles of declarations just causes 
 confusion, and AFAIK it doesn't have any benefits -- for example, it 
 doesn't significantly help in porting code from C. D declarations are 
 just better.

Absolutely, do it.

Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:

On 16/11/09 04:27, Don wrote:
 Before TDPL is published, I think we should finally get rid of C-style
 declarations.

Yes please.