J C Calvarese wrote:

> Kris wrote:
>
>> It rather looks like it was added for initial debugging purposes, rather
>> than for any far-reaching metaphysical mindgrok concept ...
>>
>> How can we persuade Walter to remove this? <g>
>
>
>
> If we make enough noise, he'll probably listen to us. I suspect he put it in there for debugging purposes a long time ago and never got around to removing it.
>
> I "vote" we remove printf from the root Object.
>
>
> Similarly, the .size and .sizeof properties are redundant. One of them has to go (I'm guessing .size will disappear.)
>
>
> Also, I think in order for D to thrive the C-style casting syntax must be dropped in favor of D's other cast syntax.
>
> d = (int) a;  <-- old C-style (sometimes ambiguous)
> d = cast(int) a; <-- D-style (never ambiguous)
>
> (I know the casting has already been discussed, but since there wasn't any controversy, I figured it wouldn't hurt to mention it again. http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/25720)

Good idea. I think it would be a good idea to remove these depreciated features ASAP, so software that is already written can be readied more quickly for 1.0.  You don't want to release 1.0 and have nothing working properly with it.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

>Good idea. I think it would be a good idea to remove these depreciated features ASAP, so software that is already written can be readied more quickly for 1.0.  You don't want to release 1.0 and have nothing working properly with it.

I was just thinking the same thing a few days ago - in particular the template "instance" construct has been deprecated in favor of !. We need at least one release that rips out these crufty features so that 1.0 is as clean as possible. The documentation doesn't list it anymore but "instance" is still a keyword.

-Ben

I agree on both points.  If were going to keep 1.0 as the standard for a while then lets streamline it at the risk of losing some backward compatility.

C

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:57:33 -0400, Ben Hinkle <bhinkle4@juno.com> wrote:

>
>> Good idea. I think it would be a good idea to remove these depreciated
>> features ASAP, so software that is already written can be readied more
>> quickly for 1.0.  You don't want to release 1.0 and have nothing working
>> properly with it.
>
> I was just thinking the same thing a few days ago - in particular
> the template "instance" construct has been deprecated in favor
> of !. We need at least one release that rips out these crufty
> features so that 1.0 is as clean as possible. The documentation
> doesn't list it anymore but "instance" is still a keyword.
>
> -Ben



-- 
D Newsgroup.

"C" <dont@respond.com> wrote in message news:opr51ti2oxehmtou@localhost... I agree on both points.  If were going to keep 1.0 as the standard for a while then lets streamline it at the risk of losing some backward compatility.

1.0?
How close do you think 1.0 is?

As the days go by, it seems further away
each day. :o(

Phill.


C

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:57:33 -0400, Ben Hinkle <bhinkle4@juno.com> wrote:

>
>> Good idea. I think it would be a good idea to remove these depreciated features ASAP, so software that is already written can be readied more quickly for 1.0.  You don't want to release 1.0 and have nothing working properly with it.
>
> I was just thinking the same thing a few days ago - in particular the template "instance" construct has been deprecated in favor of !. We need at least one release that rips out these crufty features so that 1.0 is as clean as possible. The documentation doesn't list it anymore but "instance" is still a keyword.
>
> -Ben



--
D Newsgroup.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 3/31/2004

Phill wrote:
> "C" <dont@respond.com> wrote in message news:opr51ti2oxehmtou@localhost...
> I agree on both points.  If were going to keep 1.0 as the standard for a
> while then lets streamline it at the risk of losing some backward
> compatility.
> 
> 1.0?
> How close do you think 1.0 is?
> 

At SDWest (3/17), Walter said he'd like to get it out by the end of the month.  That didn't happen, but I'd rather see the delay and have him get some work done on Interfaces and other bugs than to rush out 1.0. He's resisted so far, so hopefully he can tidy it up in the first half of the year...

BA

Brad Anderson wrote:

>
> At SDWest (3/17), Walter said he'd like to get it out by the end of the month.  That didn't happen, but I'd rather see the delay and have him get some work done on Interfaces and other bugs than to rush out 1.0. He's resisted so far, so hopefully he can tidy it up in the first half of the year...
>
> BA

Yes I too would rather a delay of a few months then a rushed product.  Of course there will probably always be some problem issue popping up with D that needs to be *fixed* and these may even be more important then the com issue.  If W delayed 1.0 D for every one, it would never get there.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

For that matter id rather him delay it for  6 months,
or even more, than to present an inferior language.

Nothing but the best for D, is what id like to see.

Phill.


"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c51l6a$v1i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Brad Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > At SDWest (3/17), Walter said he'd like to get it out by the end of the month.  That didn't happen, but I'd rather see the delay and have him get some work done on Interfaces and other bugs than to rush out 1.0. He's resisted so far, so hopefully he can tidy it up in the first half of the year...
> >
> > BA
>
> Yes I too would rather a delay of a few months then a rushed product. Of course there will probably always be some problem issue popping up with D that needs to be *fixed* and these may even be more important then the com issue.  If W delayed 1.0 D for every one, it would never get there.
>
> --
> -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 3/31/2004

"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> Nothing but the best for D, is what id like to see.

LOL. You're a poet and don't know it :-)

Actually, I'd like to see that too, but the recent interface discussion worries me, to be honest. I hadn't gotten into using them yet with D, but to learn that the design catered to COM, of all things, kinda shook me up. It has always been my philosophy that you NEVER cripple a design for old, obsolete, or deficient technologies -- you bring the older technology into line in whatever way possible, without affecting new work. If that means special pragmas or keywords, fine, but do NOT hinder new development. I certainly hope Walter takes the opinions voices here recently into account.

Anyway, while it's been fun checking out D, I need to get back to real work, alas, with C++. After this project, maybe I'll have time to come back and see how these issues have turned out, and hopefully see a 1.0 release. Go for it, Walter!

-- 
dave

"Dave Sieber" <dsieber@spamnot.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns94C565EDC2E19dsiebersbc@63.105.9.61...
> "Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Nothing but the best for D, is what id like to see.
>
> LOL. You're a poet and don't know it :-)

Your right, I didnt know it(or notice it) hahaha.

Phill.

>
> Actually, I'd like to see that too, but the recent interface discussion worries me, to be honest. I hadn't gotten into using them yet with D, but to learn that the design catered to COM, of all things, kinda shook me up. It has always been my philosophy that you NEVER cripple a design for old, obsolete, or deficient technologies -- you bring the older technology into line in whatever way possible, without affecting new work. If that means special pragmas or keywords, fine, but do NOT hinder new development. I certainly hope Walter takes the opinions voices here recently into
account.
>
> Anyway, while it's been fun checking out D, I need to get back to real work, alas, with C++. After this project, maybe I'll have time to come
back
> and see how these issues have turned out, and hopefully see a 1.0 release. Go for it, Walter!
>
> --
> dave


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 3/31/2004