On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:16:04 -0400, Chris Williams
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, 23 June 2014 at 20:49:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Since most architectures use same-size words for function addresses and
object addresses, D would be fine to say it's defined and valid. I
think the extreme outliers are architectures that are not equal, and D
will not be harmed too badly by making this distinction. Any D flavor
that would be ported to such an architecture may have to be a derived
language.
While it might be fine, I would be concerned that people wouldn't
understand the difference between a function and a delegate. They would
figure that if you can store a function reference in a void* then you
should be able to fit a delegate in as well, and proceed to lose data.
I would make it something where the compiler forces you to make an
explicit cast. Before that, it should warn you about the potential loss
of data.
That shouldn't work, even for an explicit cast.
It currently is deprecated, not sure what version it will be removed (I
didn't know it ever worked in the first place!)
-Steve
