On 2011-05-27 16:09, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:43:39 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2011-05-27 14:08, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I may see why you see so many cases -- dwt was likely ran through a java
to d converter, and such converters often add unnecessary lines, because
it is easier to do that than to examine each individual case.
DWT is manually ported from Java. A automatic port was tried and it
didn't workout that well, too much of the Java standard library needed
to be reimplemented in D. The port tries to stay as close to the
original code base as possible to ease merging future versions of SWT
and to minimize porting bugs.
Why is this comment in the file given?
/* language convertion www.dsource.org/project/tioport */
Regardless of whether this was a manual port or not, the profuse
aliasing is unnecessary, and does not provide a valid use case for the
proposal.
-Steve
I have no idea. The major part of DWT is manually ported, as far as I
know. In this case it seems that not all of the aliases are necessary.
But in general, in DWT, we want D to behave as Java, to ease porting.
Just for the record, I'm not trying to argument for either anyone's side
here, I'm just trying to correct facts about DWT that was incorrect. And
apparently I was incorrect as well :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
