On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 16:22:07 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/02/2014 06:03 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 18:33:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2014 4:53 AM, Don wrote:
I think very strongly that we should rename the "-release"
switch,
especially if
we do start to make use of asserts. It's going to cause no
end of
confusion and
passionate debate.
I would expect someone who spends more time developing code
with the
compiler to spend at least a little effort reading the two
lines of
documentation for -release and understanding that it disables
the
runtime assert checks.
+1
I've the same reasoning every time I see big threads about
installers: I
simply go with the zips for every platform I use D on.
---
Paolo
1. Note that the information about -release given in the above
post is misleading. The new -release assigns undefined
behaviour to failing assertions.
2. What has this thread to do with installers vs. zips?
Simple answer: also if I agree with Walter that the documentation
can be improved, the consequence of the -release switch over the
code base is crystal clear, it's no more that what it is written
in the documentation.
We can passionately discuss on the philosophy of undefined
behaviour, about the semantic meaning of the word 'assert', about
using it for give the compiler hints about possible
optimisations, and so on, but the discussion about renaming flags
name does not passionate me, like discussions about simplifying
the download expand a zip.
---
Paolo
