On Tuesday, 8 May 2012 at 19:00:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
I think that goal is misunderstood. It is aimed at human being,
not compiler.
If one read D code that look like C, it should be able to
understand it easily. I is not supped to compile with 100%
exact semantic.
Unfortunately that is not the case.
The stated argument is that compiling C code with a D compiler
should either compile exactly the same or produce a compilation
error.
As discussed, this is _already_ incorrect for some cases, is
completely unnecessary since you can link with pre-compiled C
code (via a C compiler) _without_ any overhead and this forces us
to carry legacy C design flaws.
If you talking about ease of understanding "C-like" D, that's
already a given because D belongs to the C-family of languages.
For that matter, JavaScript also belongs to the same family and
is easily understood (if you write C-like code). yet no one
expects to be able to copy/paste C code into a JS script and have
it working as/is.
