www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 944] New: Updated file.d

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=944

           Summary: Updated file.d
           Product: D
           Version: 1.005
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: patch, ddoc
          Severity: trivial
          Priority: P3
         Component: Phobos
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: arkangath gmail.com


I have reviewed syntax and DDoc documentation on file file.d of Phobos. I also
changed some "int" to "bool" and some other stuff. I included in an attachment
the  diff file, the modified file.d and the original file.d


-- 
Feb 09 2007
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=944


arkangath gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|bugzilla digitalmars.com    |arkangath gmail.com
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED





Created an attachment (id=99)
 --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=99&action=view)
Proposed new file.d

Feedback about changes will be welcomed. I intend to update other phobos files,
so it'd be nice to know what I can or cannot modify.

One more thing, I didn't change function parameters neither function names,
just some function return values (from int to bool). I'd like to know if the
function isfile() should be changed to isFile() (to conform with D style
notation http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dstyle.html), but because this would
break functionality, I didn't do it.


-- 
Feb 09 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=944


smjg iname.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg iname.com





Could rename it and make the old name a deprecated alias.


-- 
Feb 09 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=944


arkangath gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|arkangath gmail.com         |bugzilla digitalmars.com
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW




-- 
Feb 21 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=944


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |LATER





The problems with the edits are, they are nearly all whitespace or reformatting
changes. It's hard to see if there are any substantive changes, as one must
manually (and very carefully) compare each different line, only to find that
they only differ by whitespace.

The other problem is that changing the return values from int to bool
introduces binary backwards incompatibility, which should only done if there
are catastrophic problems.

Since std.file is debugged and working, I am reluctant to do cosmetic changes
to it; such cosmetic changes should be deferred until the code is worked on for
more substantive reasons.


-- 
Mar 20 2007
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=944


smjg iname.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|677                         |
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |677
              nThis|                            |





Indeed, I should've noticed sooner that you hadn't read issue 677 comment 4.


-- 
Mar 20 2007