Direct quote from Phobos documentation:
"No pointless wrappers around C runtime library functions or OS API functions. D
provides direct access to C runtime library functions and operating system API
functions. Pointless D wrappers around those functions just adds blather, bloat,
baggage and bugs."

std.cstream:

class CFile : Stream
A Stream wrapper for a C file of type FILE*.

:-)

Regards,
James Dunne

James Dunne wrote:
> Direct quote from Phobos documentation:
> "No pointless wrappers around C runtime library functions or OS API functions. D
> provides direct access to C runtime library functions and operating system API
> functions. Pointless D wrappers around those functions just adds blather, bloat,
> baggage and bugs."
> 
> std.cstream:
> 
> class CFile : Stream
> A Stream wrapper for a C file of type FILE*.

On what basis have you concluded that this is a _pointless_ wrapper? Does the addition of functionality and potential robustness not constitute a point?

OTOH look at std.math.  Half the stuff in there looks more like pointless wrappers from where I am.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> James Dunne wrote:
> 
>> Direct quote from Phobos documentation:
>> "No pointless wrappers around C runtime library functions or OS API functions. D
>> provides direct access to C runtime library functions and operating system API
>> functions. Pointless D wrappers around those functions just adds blather, bloat,
>> baggage and bugs."
>>
>> std.cstream:
>>
>> class CFile : Stream
>> A Stream wrapper for a C file of type FILE*.
> 
> 
> On what basis have you concluded that this is a _pointless_ wrapper? Does the addition of functionality and potential robustness not constitute a point?
> 
> OTOH look at std.math.  Half the stuff in there looks more like pointless wrappers from where I am.

Yes, they are just removing the "l" from the std library names.

std.c.math:
-------------------------
extern (C):

real   acosl(real);
-------------------------
std.math
-------------------------
real acos(real x)		{ return std.c.math.acosl(x); }
-------------------------

Why not, in std.math:

alias std.c.math.acosl acos;

Or could we even extend the syntax for extern and/or alias so that you could write:

alias extern (C): real acosl(real) acos;

or (nicer)

extern (C):
alias  real acosl(real) acos;


and remove std.c.math entirely?
There does not seem to be any purpose in having 'acosl' defined.

Don.

"Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message news:degfdm$185$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> > OTOH look at std.math.  Half the stuff in there looks more like pointless wrappers from where I am.
>
> Yes, they are just removing the "l" from the std library names.
>
> std.c.math:
> -------------------------
> extern (C):
>
> real   acosl(real);
> -------------------------
> std.math
> -------------------------
> real acos(real x) { return std.c.math.acosl(x); }
> -------------------------

It isn't quite pointless. The idea is to remove the "hungarian notation" postfixes as they are unnecessary in a language that supports overloading.


> Why not, in std.math:
>
> alias std.c.math.acosl acos;
>
> Or could we even extend the syntax for extern and/or alias so that you could write:
>
> alias extern (C): real acosl(real) acos;
>
> or (nicer)
>
> extern (C):
> alias  real acosl(real) acos;
>
>
> and remove std.c.math entirely?

Aliases cannot change the type or calling convention, after all, they are merely another name for a symbol. What's in an alias? That which we call a rose by any other alias would smell as sweet.

> It isn't quite pointless. The idea is to remove the "hungarian notation" postfixes as they are unnecessary in a language that supports overloading.

Are you aware of the origin(al) of Hungarian notation?
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
(Starting at "I'm Hungary" section.)

ElfQT
ps, I'm from hungary, by the way ;). really.


"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dejco0$1toc$3@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message news:degfdm$185$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Stewart Gordon wrote:
> > > OTOH look at std.math.  Half the stuff in there looks more like pointless wrappers from where I am.
> >
> > Yes, they are just removing the "l" from the std library names.
> >
> > std.c.math:
> > -------------------------
> > extern (C):
> >
> > real   acosl(real);
> > -------------------------
> > std.math
> > -------------------------
> > real acos(real x) { return std.c.math.acosl(x); }
> > -------------------------
>
> It isn't quite pointless. The idea is to remove the "hungarian notation" postfixes as they are unnecessary in a language that supports overloading.
>
>
> > Why not, in std.math:
> >
> > alias std.c.math.acosl acos;
> >
> > Or could we even extend the syntax for extern and/or alias so that you could write:
> >
> > alias extern (C): real acosl(real) acos;
> >
> > or (nicer)
> >
> > extern (C):
> > alias  real acosl(real) acos;
> >
> >
> > and remove std.c.math entirely?
>
> Aliases cannot change the type or calling convention, after all, they are merely another name for a symbol. What's in an alias? That which we call a rose by any other alias would smell as sweet.
>
>

ElfQT wrote:
>> It isn't quite pointless. The idea is to remove the "hungarian notation"
>> postfixes as they are unnecessary in a language that supports overloading.
> 
> Are you aware of the origin(al) of Hungarian notation?
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
> (Starting at "I'm Hungary" section.)
<snip>

Strong typedefs can be an even safer alternative ... up until you get bitten by this issue....

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3843

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3843

Nice one. When I first read of alias and typedef,
I've felt that typef should work as really a different type (so it should
find the "right" overload).
(Now I'm not that sure about it's design goal...)
So is that still a bug?

ElfQT

ElfQT wrote:
>>It isn't quite pointless. The idea is to remove the "hungarian notation"
>>postfixes as they are unnecessary in a language that supports overloading.
> 
> 
> Are you aware of the origin(al) of Hungarian notation?
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
> (Starting at "I'm Hungary" section.)
> 
> ElfQT
> ps, I'm from hungary, by the way ;). really.
> 
> 
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> news:dejco0$1toc$3@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>"Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:degfdm$185$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>>OTOH look at std.math.  Half the stuff in there looks more like
>>>>pointless wrappers from where I am.
>>>
>>>Yes, they are just removing the "l" from the std library names.
>>>
>>>std.c.math:
>>>-------------------------
>>>extern (C):
>>>
>>>real   acosl(real);
>>>-------------------------
>>>std.math
>>>-------------------------
>>>real acos(real x) { return std.c.math.acosl(x); }
>>>-------------------------
>>
>>It isn't quite pointless. The idea is to remove the "hungarian notation"
>>postfixes as they are unnecessary in a language that supports overloading.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Why not, in std.math:
>>>
>>>alias std.c.math.acosl acos;
>>>
>>>Or could we even extend the syntax for extern and/or alias so that you
>>>could write:
>>>
>>>alias extern (C): real acosl(real) acos;
>>>
>>>or (nicer)
>>>
>>>extern (C):
>>>alias  real acosl(real) acos;
>>>
>>>
>>>and remove std.c.math entirely?
>>
>>Aliases cannot change the type or calling convention, after all, they are
>>merely another name for a symbol. What's in an alias? That which we call a
>>rose by any other alias would smell as sweet.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

That was brought up before ...
"Making Wrong Code Look Wrong"  <<< that is wrong
What we should do instead, is "Make wrong code produce a compiler error" , with strong typing.

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
<snip>
> That was brought up before ...
> "Making Wrong Code Look Wrong"  <<< that is wrong
> What we should do instead, is "Make wrong code produce a compiler error" , with strong typing.

See also

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/11512.html

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

"ElfQT" <dethjunk@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dekh99$1m7a$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > It isn't quite pointless. The idea is to remove the "hungarian notation" postfixes as they are unnecessary in a language that supports
overloading.
>
> Are you aware of the origin(al) of Hungarian notation?
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
> (Starting at "I'm Hungary" section.)

Yes (I like reading Joel's essays, he's very good). I was using the popular meaning of the term. I think the original meaning is gone for good, like the original meaning of "hacker" <g>.