• sandeepk <a b.com> Dec 17 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Dec 18 2008
• KennyTM~ <kennytm gmail.com> Dec 18 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Dec 19 2008

sandeepk <a b.com> writes:

bearophile Wrote:

 Ary Borenszweig:
 Why, of course, the C syntax for types:
 int (*x[5])[3];
 int (*x)(char);
 int (*[] x)(char);
 *Ugh*...


 Try porting code that uses heavily n-dimensional tensors from C to D, and you
understand why supporting the C syntax for arrays (with inverted coordinates in
the definition) is a godsend :-)
 
 Bye,
 bearophile


I think the right solution for this is to include a tool that rewrites them
into D style. 

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to sandeepk,

 bearophile Wrote:
 
 Try porting code that uses heavily n-dimensional tensors from C to D,
 and you understand why supporting the C syntax for arrays (with
 inverted coordinates in the definition) is a godsend :-)
 


 them into D style.
 


vote ++;

KennyTM~ <kennytm gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Reply to sandeepk,
 
 bearophile Wrote:

 Try porting code that uses heavily n-dimensional tensors from C to D,
 and you understand why supporting the C syntax for arrays (with
 inverted coordinates in the definition) is a godsend :-)


 them into D style.


 vote ++;
 
 

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to KennyTM~,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Reply to sandeepk,
 
 bearophile Wrote:
 
 Try porting code that uses heavily n-dimensional tensors from C to
 D, and you understand why supporting the C syntax for arrays (with
 inverted coordinates in the definition) is a godsend :-)
 


 rewrites them into D style.
 


 


 


not quite. That's for headers. What about code files?