Sí, yes, oui. Sorry, can't remember more of those :D.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

I tried scanning the subject lines for cast and could only find the one
about
implicit narrow casting.
Is there a subject line for the thread about C-style casts?

If the primary reason to remove C-style casts is to make parsing easier then I'd say go for it because parsing code is a big part of writing quality tools and editors.

For users the mental jump from (foo)bar to cast(foo)bar is pretty
easy compared to other semantics changes D has from C (hint,
arrays).

-Ben

"Matthew" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:c39k1e$1pnp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c39hva$1m1u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Matthew wrote:
> >
> > >Matthew: Yes
> > >
> >
> > Cast on everything be mandatory?
>
> Anytime a cast is used, it should be via the cast operator, rather than a C-style cast.
>
> It doesn't mean that all implicit conversions should be given a cast.
That's
> another debate entirely.
>
> >  Details, sorry I missed the discussion
> > on this.
>
> Haven't time to summarise, but there're lots of recent posts.

In article <c3abvi$527$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
>
>I tried scanning the subject lines for cast and could only find the one
>about
>implicit narrow casting.
>Is there a subject line for the thread about C-style casts?

It's another case of thread drift. I can't blame anyone else because I'm part of the problem. ;)

Subject: Re: [BUG] dmd does not implement LR analysis
URL:     http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/25705


>
>If the primary reason to remove C-style casts is to make parsing easier then I'd say go for it because parsing code is a big part of writing quality tools and editors.
>
>For users the mental jump from (foo)bar to cast(foo)bar is pretty
>easy compared to other semantics changes D has from C (hint,
>arrays).
>
>-Ben
>
>"Matthew" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:c39k1e$1pnp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> "J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c39hva$1m1u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> > Matthew wrote:
>> >
>> > >Matthew: Yes
>> > >
>> >
>> > Cast on everything be mandatory?
>>
>> Anytime a cast is used, it should be via the cast operator, rather than a C-style cast.
>>
>> It doesn't mean that all implicit conversions should be given a cast.
>That's
>> another debate entirely.
>>
>> >  Details, sorry I missed the discussion
>> > on this.
>>
>> Haven't time to summarise, but there're lots of recent posts.
>
>

Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

As I understand it, the vote is whether, having the "cast" keyword, it should be required rather than optional for all explicit casts.  Sorry, I thought it was required, at least in some cases.  My vote is YES, always (or forget the word as a keyword entirely).  I prefer D's form to C's form - it points out more obviously where something is being type-changed from your expectation, and can be searched for more easily.

In article <c39k1e$1pnp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>
>"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c39hva$1m1u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Matthew wrote:
>>
>> >Matthew: Yes
>> >
>>
>> Cast on everything be mandatory?
>
>Anytime a cast is used, it should be via the cast operator, rather than a C-style cast.
>
>It doesn't mean that all implicit conversions should be given a cast. That's another debate entirely.
>
>>  Details, sorry I missed the discussion
>> on this.
>
>Haven't time to summarise, but there're lots of recent posts.
>
>

Matthew wrote:
> Matthew: Yes
> 

Yes. C-style casts hurt my eyes.

-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

Yes

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:18:00 -0000, Matthew <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote:

> Matthew: Yes
>
>

My vote: Yes

Reasons:
(a) An explicit keyword makes the coder's intentions more obvious to the reader.
(b) An explicit keyword makes the code more 'grepable'.
(c) Makes Walter's job easier (less parsing bugs etc...)


-- 
Derek

Yep (so im aware of what im actually doing)

Phill.

"Matthew" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:c39fo1$1iq4$3@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew: Yes
>
>

Matthew wrote:

> Matthew: Yes
> 
> 

Yes.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen

Matthew wrote:

> I could live with that, but I reckon it'll just smell like a warning by
> another name to big-W

Except, of course, unlike C compilers where you have to explicitly tell it to enforce stricter behaviour through -ansi, -warnings-as-errors (or suchnot), in this case the code would *not* compile unless you explicitly told it to ignore something.

Not that I support the idea of deprecating it. There's no reason to leave twaddle with a language to make it easier to do bad things conveniently, when part of the point of the language has been to *break* compatability to correct flaws, where C++ did not.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen