www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - deprecating instance Foo(T)

reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:

    instance Foo(int) foo;

This has been supplanted by the better syntax:

    Foo!(int)

The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
have been toying with <g>.

(Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
the -deprecated switch is used.)
May 05 2004
next sibling parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Walter wrote:

The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:

    instance Foo(int) foo;

This has been supplanted by the better syntax:

    Foo!(int)

The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
have been toying with <g>.

(Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
the -deprecated switch is used.)

-- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
May 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent vathixSpamFix dprogramming.com (Vathix) writes:
In article <c7b7ik$1oqm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, newshound digitalmars.com says...
The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:

    instance Foo(int) foo;

This has been supplanted by the better syntax:

    Foo!(int)

The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
have been toying with <g>.

(Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
the -deprecated switch is used.)

I'm OK with removing it. Hasn't it been informally deprecated already? -- Christopher E. Miller
May 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

 The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
 
     instance Foo(int) foo;
 
 This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
 
     Foo!(int)
 
 The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
 deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
 compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
 have been toying with <g>.
 
 (Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
 the -deprecated switch is used.)

huh. Somehow, I had the impression that it was already gone. I won't miss it, obviously. ;) -- andy
May 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent Mark T <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c7b7ik$1oqm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:

    instance Foo(int) foo;

This has been supplanted by the better syntax:

    Foo!(int)

The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
deprecating it, then removing it? 

no let it go

May 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
I don't really think we need to deprecate such things at this point (pre 1.0).
Just kill it, and post enough notes to let anyone who's used it know of the
change.

There'll be plenty of people to offer help to anyone who posts about having a
problem with it.

So I vote we just kill it now.

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:c7b7ik$1oqm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:

     instance Foo(int) foo;

 This has been supplanted by the better syntax:

     Foo!(int)

 The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
 deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
 compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
 have been toying with <g>.

 (Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
 the -deprecated switch is used.)

May 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Walter wrote:
 The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
 
     instance Foo(int) foo;
 
 This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
 
     Foo!(int)
 
 The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
 deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
 compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
 have been toying with <g>.
 
 (Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
 the -deprecated switch is used.)

I'd say go ahead and take instance out. (I thought it was already gone. Last time I looked I couldn't find it in the official spec, e.g. the keyword list.) -- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
May 05 2004
parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

 I'd say go ahead and take instance out. (I thought it was already 
 gone. Last time I looked I couldn't find it in the official spec, e.g. 
 the keyword list.)

time Walter made the change. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
May 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent Patrick Down <Patrick_member pathlink.com> writes:
+1

In article <c7b7ik$1oqm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:

    instance Foo(int) foo;

This has been supplanted by the better syntax:

    Foo!(int)

The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
have been toying with <g>.

(Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
the -deprecated switch is used.)

May 05 2004
prev sibling parent James McComb <alan jamesmccomb.id.au> writes:
+1

James McComb
May 06 2004