bearophile Wrote:

> Ary Borenszweig:
> > Why, of course, the C syntax for types:
> > int (*x[5])[3];
> > int (*x)(char);
> > int (*[] x)(char);
> > *Ugh*...
> 
> Try porting code that uses heavily n-dimensional tensors from C to D, and you understand why supporting the C syntax for arrays (with inverted coordinates in the definition) is a godsend :-)
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

I think the right solution for this is to include a tool that rewrites them into D style.

Reply to sandeepk,

> bearophile Wrote:
> 
>> Try porting code that uses heavily n-dimensional tensors from C to D,
>> and you understand why supporting the C syntax for arrays (with
>> inverted coordinates in the definition) is a godsend :-)
>> 
> I think the right solution for this is to include a tool that rewrites
> them into D style.
> 

vote ++;

BCS wrote:
> Reply to sandeepk,
> 
>> bearophile Wrote:
>>
>>> Try porting code that uses heavily n-dimensional tensors from C to D,
>>> and you understand why supporting the C syntax for arrays (with
>>> inverted coordinates in the definition) is a godsend :-)
>>>
>> I think the right solution for this is to include a tool that rewrites
>> them into D style.
>>
> 
> vote ++;
> 
> 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/htod.html ?

Reply to KennyTM~,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to sandeepk,
>> 
>>> bearophile Wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Try porting code that uses heavily n-dimensional tensors from C to
>>>> D, and you understand why supporting the C syntax for arrays (with
>>>> inverted coordinates in the definition) is a godsend :-)
>>>> 
>>> I think the right solution for this is to include a tool that
>>> rewrites them into D style.
>>> 
>> vote ++;
>> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/htod.html ?
> 

not quite. That's for headers. What about code files?