[Issue 16771] Depreciation of implicit string concatenation in 2.072

2016-11-25 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16771 --- Comment #5 from anonymous4 --- (In reply to Joseph M Rice from comment #0) > In C/C++, Java, C# and > virtually every programming language based on the C syntax allows for > implicit string concatenation. No? http://ideone.com/0KbaFl http://ideo

[Issue 16771] Depreciation of implicit string concatenation in 2.072

2016-11-25 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16771 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org --- Comment #4 from Iai

[Issue 16771] Depreciation of implicit string concatenation in 2.072

2016-11-25 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16771 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Issue 16771] Depreciation of implicit string concatenation in 2.072

2016-11-25 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16771 --- Comment #2 from Joseph M Rice --- (In reply to Sprink from comment #1) > Adding exceptions to a rule just makes the language even more complicated, > with very little benefit. It's not really an exception to the rule. I was pointing ou

[Issue 16771] Depreciation of implicit string concatenation in 2.072

2016-11-24 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16771 Sprink changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sprink.nore...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Sprink