On 03.09.2013 07:51, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/2/2013 9:39 PM, Dylan Knutson wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 04:33:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
There were huge debates about this back when the C standard was in
development. I don't really want to start that up again :-), I don't
remember
all the pros and cons, suffice to say that with D's vaunted C
compatibility I
think it should behave the same way.
Fair enough. Was there any discussion on these forums about it? It
sounds like
an interesting topic of discussion, because I'm curious what the use
cases are
in D.
Not to start a debate on it, but what compatibility with C is D is
afforded by
not having zero sized structs? It seems like D has abandoned a fair
number of C
warts, so it seems odd that this (to me, obscure one) one would stay.
Not following this aspect of C would result in silent and unexpected
changes in behavior when interfacing D to C data structures, which D is
supposed to be very good at.
How about specifying extern(C) before each C structure? The majority of
bindings already have "extern(C):" on top of module.
