Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
I agree with you that it should be better. I just don't agree with it
being a showstopper.
You know that the D Wikipedia article states: "The official compiler by
Walter Bright defines the language itself."?
That's often the way many successful languages are. They only get formal
standards for them written after they become mainstream, not before.
In other words, every bug in DMD is really a feature of the language. Until
you fix it. That kind of permanent instability may be part of the reason
people have been so negative around here lately.
I don't agree with that characterization. Bugs get reported to bugzilla,
and get fixed in a regular cycle.
I invite you to contribute spec corrections to the examples you pointed
out.
I will file those corrections.
Thank you, I look forward to it.
However, the MulExpression thing was only an
example. The first one I checked, too. The mentality behind "compiler
first, specification later" just seems wrong to me. And that's not
something I can report to bugzilla (or can I).
By the way, what kind of integer division *does* D use?
To be frank, it is what the x86 DIV instruction does. But I agree that
the modulus should be defined, regardless of whether that makes it less
efficient on some machines.
