On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 22:50:53 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Mr. Pib wrote:

Wow, that is pretty screwed up! I thought D was against implicit conversions that might cause problems? I'm passing an int and I should be able to append an int without having to worry about the value of the int. Instead D chose to do something very strange, awkward, and error prone.

this is legacy we got from trying to be C-compatible (along with int/uint autoconversion, and some other things). i believe that initially it was done to allow something like `char c = 32;`, and now it is too late to change it, 'cause such change will break existing code (and we're trying to not break the code without a *very* strong reason, even if keeping old code working means keeping some old quirks).

The problem is that that mentality perpetuates the problem. It keeps things from ever getting fixed and corrected by it's very nature... all to supposedly save time.... but how much time does it waste too? It would be better to break things cleanly and let those that get errors fix them... cause hell, after some years the old code will not be used more anyways or be rewritten so maybe it is trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist?

Reply via email to