• Sean Kelly (12/12) Jan 18 2006 I just noticed this last night:
• John Reimer (6/24) Jan 18 2006 I know the C syntax has been supported for awhile in D. It certainly
• Ameer Armaly (4/16) Jan 18 2006 I would support depricating it, since the D syntax is much more explicit...
• Don Clugston (5/23) Jan 18 2006 At the very least, the D syntax should be the one used in error

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

I just noticed this last night:

alias void (*t1)();
alias void function() t2;

void fn() {}

void main()
{
     t1 f = &fn;
     t2 g = &fn;
}

This compiles just fine.  Is the C syntax supported to ease porting or 
is it an artifact of a bygone day?  Should the syntax be deprecated?


Sean

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 I just noticed this last night:
 
 alias void (*t1)();
 alias void function() t2;
 
 void fn() {}
 
 void main()
 {
     t1 f = &fn;
     t2 g = &fn;
 }
 
 This compiles just fine.  Is the C syntax supported to ease porting or 
 is it an artifact of a bygone day?  Should the syntax be deprecated?
 
 
 Sean


I know the C syntax has been supported for awhile in D.  It certainly 
makes header conversion much easier.  Yet, I prefer the clarity of the D 
style; when I port C code to D, I almost always convert the function 
pointers to the D style as well.

-JJR

"Ameer Armaly" <ameer_armaly hotmail.com> writes:

"Sean Kelly" <sean f4.ca> wrote in message 
news:dqltqq$125l$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I just noticed this last night:

 alias void (*t1)();
 alias void function() t2;

 void fn() {}

 void main()
 {
     t1 f = &fn;
     t2 g = &fn;
 }

 This compiles just fine.  Is the C syntax supported to ease porting or is 
 it an artifact of a bygone day?  Should the syntax be deprecated?

I would support depricating it, since the D syntax is much more explicit and 
clear.
 Sean 

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 I just noticed this last night:
 
 alias void (*t1)();
 alias void function() t2;
 
 void fn() {}
 
 void main()
 {
     t1 f = &fn;
     t2 g = &fn;
 }
 
 This compiles just fine.  Is the C syntax supported to ease porting or 
 is it an artifact of a bygone day?  Should the syntax be deprecated?
 
 
 Sean

At the very least, the D syntax should be the one used in error 
messages. It's a bit silly that an error message involving t2 will 
describe it as

void (*t2)()