On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 17:09:05 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:56:46 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:46:39 -0400, Maxim Fomin
<ma...@maxim-fomin.ru> wrote:
Please provide reasons why it is wrong (but without
explanation how druntime allocates memory which is
irrelevant).
It's wrong in that D's spec re-defines dynamic arrays from the
traditional definition (I think for the sake of simplicity,
but I didn't write the definition, so I'm not sure). D's
slices aren't dynamic arrays, no matter how many specs say so.
Oh, you were looking for an actual *functional* differences
between slices and dynamic arrays.
-Steve
I was looking for explanation why after years of stable array
definition one article abolish official spec (without changing
it) and major implementation without any Walter or Andrei
approval. I got an answer in previous comment but found it
unsatisfactory: simply because somebody considers that D
definitions contradict to some external notions is not a reason
to change it. There are other places in D which do not correspond
with names in other languages or with general terms. Also, there
is as much opinions, as much people, so moving language toward
some external definition is a problematic task.
It would be good if Walter or Andrei comment on this.
