"Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > bearophile wrote: >> There are some things I'd like to see added to the D language, but what >> things can be removed from it? >> > > * C-style declarations
I certainly wouldn't mind seeing these go. But then, I haven't tried to port much C/C++ code to D. > * \n, \r as a string (free up the backslash character) > * #line (make it a pragma instead) Agreed. > * Octal (it's not 1952 any more) Disagree. Octal can often useful on low-level embedded stuff. Heck, I've worked on a recent microcontroller where even base-4 was extremely handy. If anything, I'd recommend adding base-4 to D, and certainly not removing octal. > * the comma operator (allow in selected places, eg for(; ;++a, ++b)). > * Object.toString(). Encourages bad design. It's not powerful enough to be > useful. What is the problem with these? > * The postincrement and postdecrement operators (make x++, x-- identical > to ++x, --x, except that it is illegal to use the return value. Allowing > operator overloading of the postfix operators was a silly hack in C++. > It's a freedom nobody wants). I'm certainly not a fan of post??crement. They lead to confusing code/results. Plus, I don't know if this is still relevent, but back when I was using C++, doing "foo++;" instead of "++foo;" on a non-primitive was considered bad because (IIRC) it created a useless temp copy (or something like that). Granted, I'd much rather type "x++" than "++x", but the behavior of post??crement is something I could certainly do without.
