August 14, 2014 [Issue 3934] Some untidy attributes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3934 Ivan Kazmenko <gassa@mail.ru> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://issues.dlang.org/sh | |ow_bug.cgi?id=12638 -- |
July 13, 2019 [Issue 3934] Some untidy attributes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3934 Mathias LANG <pro.mathias.lang@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |pro.mathias.lang@gmail.com Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #29 from Mathias LANG <pro.mathias.lang@gmail.com> --- There are way too many examples (some of which have been addressed, many still valid) for this to be actionable. A proper proposal would most likely take a lot of time and go through the DIP process, as it is a fundamental change to the grammar (regardless of its validity). Trivial items such as protection attributes on class inheritance and redundant attributes have been addressed. Some items are also documented here: https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Idiotmatic-D/blob/master/idiotmatic.d > I like the strictness of the Java compiler, it makes sure your attributes are all correct and meaningful, this helps avoid possible bugs. To address this specific point: DMD being lax, while unsettling to some, is also great for generic code. There are quite a lot of cases where DMD being stricter would result in worst code because it would require some special casing in generic code. Closing as INVALID. -- |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation