Walter wrote:
> "Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message
> news:d8bvps$12nq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> The urgency depends on whether we want the people learning D now
>> to use readf/writef, or use the "good ole" scanf/printf instead ?
> 
> I don't think it is urgent, for the simple reason that support for C
> functions, which include printf, is not going away in D.

I'm more concerned about the fact that uncaught error messages are going to stdout when they should be going to stderr.

Moreover, the fix is already written.  Surely it would be quicker to just put it in than to carry on arguing?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

> I'm more concerned about the fact that uncaught error messages are going to stdout when they should be going to stderr.
> 
> Moreover, the fix is already written.  Surely it would be quicker to just put it in than to carry on arguing?

Actually it is two _different_ fixes and issues...

The error redirect from the current stdout to stderr
shouldn't be at all hard to do regardless of "print" ?

AFAIK, it's like three lines of code to change ? :-P


Changing the print/printf is not exactly "tricky" either,
just tedious since it involves a lot of user code as well.

And someone still needs to clean up "readf" for release,
which probably involves finalizing the D typeinfo first.

Before we have any input methods too, changing the printf
over to writef isn't really all that "urgent" IMHO either.

--anders


PS. I also think "void main" should be addressed sooner
    rather than later, at least *define* it in the spec ?
    (it doesn't have to be implemented just yet, if tricky)

Anders F Björklund wrote:
<snip>
> The error redirect from the current stdout to stderr
> shouldn't be at all hard to do regardless of "print" ?

Indeed.  But is there any reason not to put both patches in at the same time?

<snip>
> Before we have any input methods too, changing the printf
> over to writef isn't really all that "urgent" IMHO either.

IMHO we shouldn't only be asking whether it's urgent, but also whether there's any reason to hold back.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

>> The error redirect from the current stdout to stderr
>> shouldn't be at all hard to do regardless of "print" ?
> 
> Indeed.  But is there any reason not to put both patches in at the same time?
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Before we have any input methods too, changing the printf
>> over to writef isn't really all that "urgent" IMHO either.
> 
> IMHO we shouldn't only be asking whether it's urgent, but also whether there's any reason to hold back.

I don't think so myself, but if Walter doesn't want to...

=> Maybe easier in "small steps" ? :-)


And it wasn't like printf was going to be removed from D
or anything, just moved back to the proper import module ?

But I'm not holding my breath, I'm doing other things and
will check back in a few months to see how it is going...

--anders