Jonathan M Davis:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3934
Whether that'll change or not, I don't know, since it's not
clear that Walter considers it to be a problem from what I
recall about his comments on discussions on it.
It's a significant problem because:
1) It's a _ridiculous_ situation. Allowing some of those things
I've reported in bug 3934 is bad PR for D language. The DMD
compiler looks incredibly sloppy compared to every other language
compiler/interpreter, including old C compilers. It's about at
7.5 Mega KermitFrog sloppiness, that's almost PHP-level sloppy.
2) It makes much harder for D newbies to learn what's correct and
what's not correct. When you are learning something new, you
really want a strict teacher, otherwise you will have a much
harder time learning what's correct (I've experimentally seen
that even the total frienshipping inside D modules makes less
easy to learn the usage of private/protected tags for new OOP D
programmers).
3) It's confusing even for not newbie programmers, as Manu shows.
And confusion is bad, error prone, makes people waste time, etc.
4) Different D compilers will be sloppy in slightly different
ways, this means D code will not be portable across different
compilers.
struct S
{
static x;
__gshared y;
}
What is the difference between x and y here?
x is in TLS, so there's one instance per thread. I'm not quite
sure whether
__gshared does anything here though, since it's a member
variable rather than
a class variable or module-level variable. I expect that
__gshared is ignored
here, but I don't know.
I expect __gshared to not be ignored here. I think "__gshared"
there is the same thing as "__gshared static".
Bye,
bearophile
