November 09, 2005
I just spent half an hour trying to figure out why a certain piece of code wouldn't compile. Puzzled by a cryptic error message, and after reducing it to the simplest form of code:

  class Bar(TYPE)
  {
	Bar!(TYPE) instance;
  }

and still without it compiling, surprised was I when just by changing the field name it compiled. I searched the doc, and yo and behold, "instance" is a deprecated keyword: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/473.html
( which I naturally had never heard about... O_o' )
Maybe it's time we kill some of these older deprecated features, no?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."
November 09, 2005
"Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO@SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:dkt3g1$15jp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>I just spent half an hour trying to figure out why a certain piece of code wouldn't compile. Puzzled by a cryptic error message, and after reducing it to the simplest form of code:
>
>   class Bar(TYPE)
>   {
> Bar!(TYPE) instance;
>   }
>
> and still without it compiling, surprised was I when just by changing the
> field name it compiled. I searched the doc, and yo and behold, "instance"
> is a deprecated keyword:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/473.html
> ( which I naturally had never heard about... O_o' )
> Maybe it's time we kill some of these older deprecated features, no?

Can we have a show of hands for how many still use "instance" to instantiate a template? It's my guess that only ancient legacy code will use it. And it's good, honest variable name that should probably be free'd up.

>
> -- 
> Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
> "Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to
> be... unnatural."


November 09, 2005
I would also like to see this identifier freed up since it is my favorite name for a singleton instance.

;)
Garett

"Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO@SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:dkt3g1$15jp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>I just spent half an hour trying to figure out why a certain piece of code wouldn't compile. Puzzled by a cryptic error message, and after reducing it to the simplest form of code:
>
>   class Bar(TYPE)
>   {
> Bar!(TYPE) instance;
>   }
>
> and still without it compiling, surprised was I when just by changing the field name it compiled. I searched the doc, and yo and
> behold, "instance" is a deprecated keyword: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/473.html
> ( which I naturally had never heard about... O_o' )
> Maybe it's time we kill some of these older deprecated features, no?
>
> -- 
> Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
> "Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."


November 10, 2005
Amen!
It's my favourite name for singleton instance too!

Garett Bass wrote:
> I would also like to see this identifier freed up since it is my favorite name for a singleton instance.
> 
> ;)
> Garett
> 
> "Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO@SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:dkt3g1$15jp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>I just spent half an hour trying to figure out why a certain piece of code wouldn't compile. Puzzled by a cryptic error message, and after reducing it to the simplest form of code:
>>
>>  class Bar(TYPE)
>>  {
>>Bar!(TYPE) instance;
>>  }
>>
>>and still without it compiling, surprised was I when just by changing the field name it compiled. I searched the doc, and yo and behold, "instance" is a deprecated keyword: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/473.html
>>( which I naturally had never heard about... O_o' )
>>Maybe it's time we kill some of these older deprecated features, no?
>>
>>-- 
>>Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
>>"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural." 
> 
> 
> 
February 07, 2012
On 09-11-2005 16:10, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> I just spent half an hour trying to figure out why a certain piece of
> code wouldn't compile. Puzzled by a cryptic error message, and after
> reducing it to the simplest form of code:
>
> class Bar(TYPE)
> {
> Bar!(TYPE) instance;
> }
>
> and still without it compiling, surprised was I when just by changing
> the field name it compiled. I searched the doc, and yo and behold,
> "instance" is a deprecated keyword:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/473.html
> ( which I naturally had never heard about... O_o' )
> Maybe it's time we kill some of these older deprecated features, no?
>

Wow, I had no idea. This needs to be freed up.

-- 
- Alex
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home