http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112



--- Comment #3 from Stewart Gordon <s...@iname.com> 2010-10-24 18:24:17 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Here's a relevant link: 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=114064

Far better to link to the archives.  
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Re_poll_about_delete_114014.html#N114064

> Andrei - "Walter plans to change the documentation to reflect the 
> demise of delete and scope storage class."

If it's just something Walter's said to somebody in personal 
communication, IMO it needs to be taken with at least a pinch of salt.

> I agree to some extent that planned changes should not necessarily 
> be in the specification, but they definitely need to be somewhere, 
> and I see no harm in at least putting a note in the specification 
> that these features are scheduled for deprecation.

Not without an indication of what its replacement is going to be.

> Currently, the only way to know about the status of scope and 
> delete is to be a regular on the news groups.

It's worse than that.  The only way to know is to either happen to read this
particular message in the newsgroups or be in the pattern of reading every
message in detail.

Besides, the scope keyword is three things:

(a) a storage class
(b) a class attribute
(c) a means of doing scope guards

So when you say "The scope keyword is to be deprecated", you really just mean
"meaning (a) of scope is to be deprecated".

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to