On 14.05.2012 23:26, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 15:23:59 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 15:07:30 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
<andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/14/12, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Really, printf is the *only* reason to have this backwards
compatibility
"feature", and I strongly wish we could get rid of it.
printf is also unique in that it works when called in class
destructors, which is sometimes needed for debugging (unlike writef
which wants to allocate memory and then throws).
That's an excellent point. But what a really mean is, I wish we could
get rid of the requirement for interoperability between printf and
writef.
Of course, we couldn't get rid of printf, it's part of the C runtime!
Oh, and also, we should fix that problem (that writef allocates).
However, I think we need DIP9 in order to do that.
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP9
DIP9 for the win!
I tried to revive at least *some* interest in it for a long time.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
