bearophile Wrote: > d-noob: > > >That would break C compatibility and sounds ridiculous.< > > It breaks C compatibility, but it doesn't assign a new meaning to a C syntax, > it just disallows a syntax used in C, and this is allowed by D philosophy. > > Many of the things I say sound ridiculous :-) > You may say it's not a handy change and you may refuse it, but I think it's > not a ridiculous idea because those changes lead to code that's equal to how > some expert coders suggest to program to avoid bugs, this is one of them, but > I have seen two more: > http://users.bestweb.net/~ctips/tip037.html > So it's a language enforcement of a coding tip/standard.
Might be so. I don't personally like C code like int c; c = (c++), (--c), (++c); But there has to be a middle ground. Lately there has been many attempts at removing C like parts of the grammar, but that will harm D in the long run. Once the C/C++ crowd realizes how good D is, they will only convert if there is a safe syntactical path.
