On Thursday, 11 October 2012 at 17:57:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:46:03 Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 10/11/2012 10:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> (arguably no one should really be using hash_t or equals_t
> at this
point, but
> I don't know if they're ever going to actually go away).
I've been assuming that they were relatively newer aliases. Is
it
recommended to use size_t and bool instead?
They're old. equals_t was done because D1 uses (used?) int for
opEquals
instead of bool. I don't know if there was ever a good reason
for hash_t to
exist. I don't believe that TDPL uses either, and I believe
that they've been
mostly removed from druntime and Phobos (if they haven't been
entirely removed
yet, they will be, aside from the aliases themselves).
So, I would definitely recommend not using equals_t or hash_t,
but while some
of us are definitely looking to get rid of them entirely, I
suspect that
they'll be around semi-permanently just to preserve backwards
compatibility.
- Jonathan M Davis
In C, *technically*, anything ending in _t is reserved for future
usage, but this is not enforced.
Does D also reserve those names? Shouldn't it?
