We really should aim to minimize the wtfpm<http://davidlongstreet.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/new-software-metric-wtfs-per-minute/> for future users. I propose: * support version(nocheckbounds) with same meaning as version( D_NoBoundsChecks) * list D_NoBoundsChecks as soft-deprecated. By soft-deprecated I mean list it in http://dlang.org/deprecate.html but keep it for now, perhaps indefinitely.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>wrote: > On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 05:17:08 Ivan Kazmenko wrote: > > By the way, what is the naming convention of predefined versions? > > I am having a hard time trying to figure it out by myself from > > the docs (http://dlang.org/version.html#PredefinedVersions). > > > > To me, it would make sense if all predefined versions started > > with "D_" or something similar to avoid conflicts with user > > versions. Currently, the exceptions are vendor-related and > > architecture-related (a whole lot of them, actually) as well as > > the following: > > > > unittest > > assert > > all > > none > > > > Now, "all" and "none" are clearly special. But, really, what's > > the conceptual difference between "unittest", "assert" and > > "D_NoBoundsChecks" which results in using the different naming > > convention? > > Sorry. There is no naming convention. It's completely arbitrary. They were > added haphazardly over time, and AFAIK, there was never any real effort > when > adding them to make them consistent, or if there was, the conventions > weren't > followed consistently throughout, and the end result is that there really > is > no naming convention. And Walter didn't want to change any of them later, > because that would break code (and potentially do so in silent and nasty > ways). So, we're stuck with an incredibly inconsistent set of names. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
