On 22/05/2011 11:57, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 05:15:32 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas <simen.kja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
It's the old C syntax for defining function pointers. Well, without the
pointer. And that last part is important, because the latter example is
an array of function pointers, with which D has no issue.
Yes, and I thought we were killing that syntax because of how horrible it is?
Indeed, that D has this notion of immediate function types is absurd:
- it's mostly undocumented; indeed, no mention of it on type.html
- there's no native D syntax for it, only the kludgy syntax inherited from C
- it seems silly to have a type that you can't declare variables of and that (unlike void)
has no obvious practical reason for its existence
- it leads to such corner cases as
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3650
Stewart.
