On 8/30/13 9:55 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Friday, 30 August 2013 at 21:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* typedef: it was so ill defined, bringing it any closer to sanity
would've broken someone's code.
I haven't heard about any specific troubles with typedef which are
reason to depreciate the feature.
The problem is nobody could agree whether typedef was a supertype or a
subtype of its original type. It was just a bizarre teratoma grown by
happenstance.
In addition to typedef some other
features are also experiencing troubles (shared, ref, properties,
invariants,..) yet they are not deprecated.
That's not an argument.
* delete: a festering dung of unsafety straight in the middle of the
language.
It was useful to delete class objects at the time where programmer knew
that he can delete safely to mitigate the problem of dangling references
upon class finalization (by invoking dtor when objects are alive). Right
now there is no way to do that. By the way, currently dmd accepts
putting @safe attribute on class dtor definitions which access GC
objects - this is a hole in @safety (accessing such elements is not a
sufficient reason to be hole in safity, but not reseting pointers to
null is).
That would be a bug.
If there's enough argument that the functionality of delete is
actually desirable we can always add a function for that.
Probably yes.
* scope: cute and dangerous in equal proportions - great for a movie
character, terrible for language design.
Andrei
I cannot remember any feature implemented in phobos that was better then
built-in language construct, including scope. Hasn't C++ followed the
same policy and at the end it was considered as mistake?
Not sure I understand.
At least D has
many built-in features comparing to C++ and this is advertized as an
advantage.
I don't think that's how I see things.
Andrei
