On 01/12/2011 02:17 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Somewhere in this thread:
Am 11.01.2011 21:43, schrieb Walter Bright:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I agree with this reasoning for having them. However, I don't think it
>> means we shouldn't D-ify or Phobos-ify them, at least as far as
>> capitalization conventions.
>
> I also object to rather pointlessly annoying people wanting to move
> their code from D1 to D2 by renaming everything. Endlessly renaming
> things searching for the perfect name gives the illusion of progress,
> whereas time would be better spent on improving the documentation,
> unittests, performance, etc.
>
So his objection was specifically that renaming those functions could
annoy people migrating D1 code (and certainly he meant Phobos1 users,
because Tango-people either port (parts of) Tango or will have to
rewrite that anyway).
So, to accomplish that goal (not annoying those people), these aliases
should be kept for longer.
(An alternative may be to one/some phobos1-compat modules that contain
such aliases and maybe even wrappers with old signatures for new
functions, that could be imported to ease porting of old applications.
That would have the benefit of not cluttering the regular Phobos2
modules with that legacy stuff.)
When D2 / Phobos2 stabilise, what about a semi-automatic porting tool
(at least signaling potential issues, first of all occurrences of
deprecated stdlib names)?
Denis
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
