== Quote from bearophile ([email protected])'s article > d-noob: > >That would break C compatibility and sounds ridiculous.< > It breaks C compatibility, but it doesn't assign a new meaning to a C syntax, > it just disallows a syntax used in C, and this is allowed by D philosophy. > Many of the things I say sound ridiculous :-) > You may say it's not a handy change and you may refuse it, but I think it's > not a ridiculous idea because those changes lead to code that's equal to how some expert coders suggest to program to avoid bugs, this is one of them, but I have seen two more: > http://users.bestweb.net/~ctips/tip037.html > So it's a language enforcement of a coding tip/standard.
In other words, bondage and discipline. The legitimate role of a language designer for a systems language is to make it hard to shoot yourself in the foot *by accident* and to provide sane *defaults*. IMHO no language designer, not even Walter, should take it upon himself/herself enforce his/her view of "correct" or "safe" programming style on me through arbitrary restrictions on what the language can do. > Bye, > bearophile
