bearophile Wrote: > Don: > > > That is, it doesn't work out if it was intended to be a constructor, it > > gives the same error message for any function with no return type. > > It seems this little patch of yours fixes something like 4 different bug > reports present in Bugzilla :-) > > I suggest to add to the D docs a note that lists all the purposes of the -d > command line switch, including accepting C function pointers. > > So the -cstyle command line switch may be replaced by the -d. Regarding bug > 4580, is it possible to use the -d switch to deprecate (and re-enable when it > is used) C-style array declarations too? (Bug 4580 talks about two extra > warnings too, they too may be tied to the -d switch, but they are less > important). > > Bye and thank you, > bearophile
I still think it is important to resolve bugs related to C syntax, if you can still compile it. Is any tested done against deprecated features? While they shouldn't be used, it should still be checked that they work while they exist.
