On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:07:38 +0900 Mike Parker <aldac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 7:51 PM, Fawzi Mohamed wrote: > > Is there any "porting" guide around in a wiki? > > If not a page where to share the best tricks would be nice "D1->D2 > > conversion tricks"? > > > > In the short term I don't think that going D2 only is really an option > > for me, so how feasible it is to keep the code base compatible to both > > D1 and D2? > > > > I know that one can define some templates (for example Const(T),....), > > and maybe use mixins, but how much uglier does the code become as result? > > I choose D to have cleaner code, I am not interested in loosing all that > > just to be D1 and D2, then I prefer to wait, and convert everything at > > once. > > > > Well that is about it... > > > > thanks > > > > Fawzi > > In maintaining Derelict, which is nothing more than a simple collection > of bindings to C libraries, I have had headaches keeping compatibility > between D1/D2. It's nothing that has been difficult to solve, just ugly. > > If something as simple as a C-binding is uglified, I cringe at the > thought of maintaining something more complex. It's going to get very > ugly, very quickly. My attitude is that any future D projects I make > available will be D2 only. I just don't think it's worth being > compatible with both versions from a code maintenance perspective. I have read your blog post on the topic. This let me think that all true needs for string mixins, like yours, are cases revealing plain language issues. denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com