Walter Bright wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:Don wrote:I have a vague recollection that this bizarre definition is for compatibility with an ancient mistake in C. Some clown miscalculated it, and by the time people realized, they felt it was too late to fix it.Then it sounds like something D should get right.There's a problem with that - porting working C numerics code to D.
Let's do what we know works - define the right thing with a different name, and deprecate the existing name.
Andrei
