View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 05, 2004
deprecating instance Foo(T)
The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:

   instance Foo(int) foo;

This has been supplanted by the better syntax:

   Foo!(int)

The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
have been toying with <g>.

(Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
the -deprecated switch is used.)
May 05, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
Walter wrote:

>The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
>
>    instance Foo(int) foo;
>
>This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
>
>    Foo!(int)
>
>The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
>deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
>compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
>have been toying with <g>.
>
>(Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
>the -deprecated switch is used.)
>
+1


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
May 05, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
In article <c7b7ik$1oqm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, newshound@digitalmars.com says...
>
>The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
>
>    instance Foo(int) foo;
>
>This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
>
>    Foo!(int)
>
>The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
>deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
>compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
>have been toying with <g>.
>
>(Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
>the -deprecated switch is used.)
>

I'm OK with removing it. Hasn't it been informally deprecated already?

-- 
Christopher E. Miller
May 05, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
Walter wrote:

> The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
> 
>     instance Foo(int) foo;
> 
> This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
> 
>     Foo!(int)
> 
> The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
> deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
> compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
> have been toying with <g>.
> 
> (Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
> the -deprecated switch is used.)

huh.  Somehow, I had the impression that it was already gone.  I won't 
miss it, obviously. ;)

 -- andy
May 05, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
In article <c7b7ik$1oqm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
>
>    instance Foo(int) foo;
>
>This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
>
>    Foo!(int)
>
>The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
>deprecating it, then removing it? 

no let it go

>
May 05, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
I don't really think we need to deprecate such things at this point (pre 1.0).
Just kill it, and post enough notes to let anyone who's used it know of the
change.

There'll be plenty of people to offer help to anyone who posts about having a
problem with it.

So I vote we just kill it now.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:c7b7ik$1oqm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
>
>     instance Foo(int) foo;
>
> This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
>
>     Foo!(int)
>
> The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
> deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
> compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
> have been toying with <g>.
>
> (Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
> the -deprecated switch is used.)
>
>
May 05, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
Walter wrote:
> The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
> 
>     instance Foo(int) foo;
> 
> This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
> 
>     Foo!(int)
> 
> The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
> deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
> compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
> have been toying with <g>.
> 
> (Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
> the -deprecated switch is used.)

I'd say go ahead and take instance out. (I thought it was already gone. 
Last time I looked I couldn't find it in the official spec, e.g. the 
keyword list.)

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
May 05, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
+1

In article <c7b7ik$1oqm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>The original way of instantiating a template in D was to write:
>
>    instance Foo(int) foo;
>
>This has been supplanted by the better syntax:
>
>    Foo!(int)
>
>The older form is obsolete - does anyone have any objection to first
>deprecating it, then removing it? Removing it removes some detritus from the
>compiler, as well as opening the door for some cool new syntax Matthew and I
>have been toying with <g>.
>
>(Deprecating it means issue a compile error on seeing it unless
>the -deprecated switch is used.)
>
>
May 05, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
J C Calvarese wrote:

>
> I'd say go ahead and take instance out. (I thought it was already 
> gone. Last time I looked I couldn't find it in the official spec, e.g. 
> the keyword list.)
>
It was taken out of the specs ages ago.  Actually I think at the same 
time Walter made the change.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
May 06, 2004
Re: deprecating instance Foo(T)
+1

James McComb
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home