Previously, I've tried to use the deprecation facility to change method name cases to fall in with the D style.

I recall that there were linker problems.

I want to change the method names of std.recls and std.windows.registry to conform to the D style (even though it sucks like a Wurther's Original!) to be a good citizen, but I'd like to keep the old methods, marked deprecate, for a couple of versions. There are two reasons for this:

1. The instalment of my CUJ "Positive Integration" column in which the D and Java mapping of recls are described is about to come out. The casing style described in the article is the current (superior <g>) one. I'm not going to screw my readers, and potentially put a lot of people off D, by changing std.recls now, as people coming to it from the CUJ article will just think it's an unstable load of old crap.

2. I think in general a robust and sane evolution of code should be supported by the deprecation facilities - which are a bloody good idea! - and case-changes should work just as well as any other ones.

BigW, please advise whether this question is surmountable.

Matthew

In article <bvp9uf$1hgm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>conform to the D style (even though it sucks like a Wurther's Original!) to

Could you be more specific?

"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bvrino$2as9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <bvp9uf$1hgm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >conform to the D style (even though it sucks like a Wurther's Original!)
to
>
> Could you be more specific?

Do you mean about what I personally think sucks about the D method naming
style? Simple, I don't like thisMethodNameStyle(), I prefer
ThisMethodNameSyle().

But I know I'm on a losing wicket, and I resolved a while back not to bother swimming against this particular stream, hence my gripe being a parenthetical aside.

Please, no-one waste time trying to persuade me, since I accept that's what we're doing anyway.

What I am interested for all to consider is the main issue of my post.

> But I know I'm on a losing wicket, and I resolved a while back not to bother
> swimming against this particular stream, hence my gripe being a
> parenthetical aside.

You can hit 6's on other issues.  (And this from an American)

"Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:bvp9uf$1hgm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Previously, I've tried to use the deprecation facility to change method
name
> cases to fall in with the D style.
>
> I recall that there were linker problems.

That's most likely because what you did was have two names that only differed by case. The linker, by default, ignores case and so will produce a multiply defined symbol error. The solution is to link with /noi (noignorecase).

Doh!

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:c9om10$1n08$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:bvp9uf$1hgm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Previously, I've tried to use the deprecation facility to change method
> name
> > cases to fall in with the D style.
> >
> > I recall that there were linker problems.
>
> That's most likely because what you did was have two names that only differed by case. The linker, by default, ignores case and so will produce a multiply defined symbol error. The solution is to link with /noi (noignorecase).
>
>