On Monday, June 03, 2013 16:49:29 Timothee Cour wrote: > I meant 'why not have version(noboundscheck) instead of > version(D_NoBoundsChecks)' > of course.
So, you're complaining about the name of the version identifier? I thought that you were complaining that we were using a flag instead a version identifier to turn on noboundscheck. I don't know why that name was chosen or even who chose it. If you look at the list of official identifiers, you can see that it's pretty arbitrary as to what the exact naming scheme is. Not even the casing is consistent. So, I expect that D_NoBoundsCheck was chosen simply because whoever picked it thought that it best followed the generally naming scheme, or they just preferred that name. As it stands, there's really no hope of being able to figure out what any of the official version identifiers are without looking them up and memorizing them - including the spelling and whatever other naming quirks that particular identifier may have. And unfortunately, there's no way that that's going to be fixed at this point due to code breakage that it would cause. You might be able to get D_NoBoundsChecks changed given how new it is, but I don't know. - Jonathan M Davis
