<< I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I don't remember seeing any discussion about it. If it has been, please direct me to one of the old threads that discussed it. >>

I noticed that D supports the klumsy C-Style declarations, like

int (*x[5])[3];	   // x is an array of 5 pointers to arrays of 3 ints

I hate them!
To be honest, I never understood them; never tried to. This example is taken from the docs, and I really don't understand how does it make x an array of 5 pointers to arrays of 3 ints!!

D has nicer syntax,
int[3]*[5] x;	// x is an array of 5 pointers to arrays of 3 ints

I can't say I understand how it works, but when I read the description, is makes a lot of sense. It reads right to left:
[5]    array of size 5
*      pointer(s)
[3]    array of size 3
int    int(s)

array of 5 pointers to array of 3 ints!

The only reason I don't understand it right away is because I don't like nested complex declarations like this anyway, so I never tried to learn how to declare them. However, the D syntax makes alot of sense.

Consider for example this C-Style declaration:
int (*x)(char);

VS this D-Style declaration:
int function(char) x;

Why does D support int (*x)(char); anyway?!

Since D has a more intelligent way of declaring the same things, the C-Style syntax is unnecessarily redundant IMHO.

My understanding is that it's supported to attract the C/C++ people and get them familiarized with D quickly.

But, does this mean that C-Style declarations are gonna stay with D forever?

I personally would like to see them gone. but that's not for me to decide.

I mean, isn't the C-Style declaration syntax considered to be a design flaw in the original C? If so, does D really need to carry it out in order to attract C/C++ people?
That seems to be (to me) totally against the philosophy of D.

So Walter, I would like to please hear your opinion/decision about C-Style declarations; are they here to stay? or will they be deprecated at some point?

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> << I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I don't remember seeing any discussion about it. If it has been, please direct me to one of the old threads that discussed it. >>
> 
> I noticed that D supports the klumsy C-Style declarations, like
> 
> int (*x[5])[3];       // x is an array of 5 pointers to arrays of 3 ints
> 
> I hate them!
> To be honest, I never understood them; never tried to. This example is taken from the docs, and I really don't understand how does it make x an array of 5 pointers to arrays of 3 ints!!
> 
> D has nicer syntax,
> int[3]*[5] x;    // x is an array of 5 pointers to arrays of 3 ints
> 
[...]
> 
> Since D has a more intelligent way of declaring the same things, the C-Style syntax is unnecessarily redundant IMHO.
> 
> My understanding is that it's supported to attract the C/C++ people and get them familiarized with D quickly.
> 
> But, does this mean that C-Style declarations are gonna stay with D forever?
> 
> I personally would like to see them gone. but that's not for me to decide.
[...]
> So Walter, I would like to please hear your opinion/decision about C-Style declarations; are they here to stay? or will they be deprecated at some point?
> 
> 
IIRC the c style types are for convenience when porting from C. I think a better solution would be a type translator tool. Give it a listing of types in C and it gives you the same type in D (and vise versa).

I would like to see them go also.

Hasan Aljudy escribió:
> << I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I don't remember seeing any discussion about it. If it has been, please direct me to one [snip]

I do understand C style declarations now but *only* through years of awful experiences and they are abominable. So I'll have to agree 100% with its removal if it were my decision. I'm C/C++ programmer and I didn't need that to get attracted to D, in fact, on the contrary its clearer syntax is one of the most attractive points. I'd stay with C++ if D had the same ugly syntax (as flat as it sounds).

--
Tom;

I vote for this too.

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> 
> So Walter, I would like to please hear your opinion/decision about C-Style declarations; are they here to stay? or will they be deprecated at some point?

I'm hoping they will be deprecated before 1.0.  While this may mean a small amount of extra work porting headers, I think it's worthwhile.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>
>> So Walter, I would like to please hear your opinion/decision about C-Style declarations; are they here to stay? or will they be deprecated at some point?
> 
> I'm hoping they will be deprecated before 1.0.  While this may mean a small amount of extra work porting headers, I think it's worthwhile.

I left them in because they do not cause any ambiguities or trouble with the D declaration syntax. It also significantly reduces the amount of work needed to translate code to D. I don't see a compelling reason to remove them; just don't use them if you don't like them.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> 
>> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So Walter, I would like to please hear your opinion/decision about C-Style declarations; are they here to stay? or will they be deprecated at some point?
>>
>>
>> I'm hoping they will be deprecated before 1.0.  While this may mean a small amount of extra work porting headers, I think it's worthwhile.
> 
> 
> I left them in because they do not cause any ambiguities or trouble with the D declaration syntax. It also significantly reduces the amount of work needed to translate code to D. I don't see a compelling reason to remove them; just don't use them if you don't like them.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/faq.html#q3

from http://www.digitalmars.com/d/overview.html

"Major Goals of D
[...]
    * Make D substantially easier to implement a compiler for than C++."

If people don't want it, then it just adds unnecessarily to the task of making a compiler.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> 
>> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So Walter, I would like to please hear your opinion/decision about C-Style declarations; are they here to stay? or will they be deprecated at some point?
>>
>>
>> I'm hoping they will be deprecated before 1.0.  While this may mean a small amount of extra work porting headers, I think it's worthwhile.
> 
> 
> I left them in because they do not cause any ambiguities or trouble with the D declaration syntax. It also significantly reduces the amount of work needed to translate code to D. I don't see a compelling reason to remove them; just don't use them if you don't like them.

I think it kinda does.

in C/C++, the following is valid declarations:

    typedef int foo;
    int(x); //OK, declares x as int
    foo(y); //OK, declares y as foo

in D, we get this:

    alias int bar;
    typedef int foo;
    int(x); // OK, declares x as int
    foo(y); // OK!!
    bar(z); // OK!!

    int main()
    {
        .y = 10; // ok
        .z = 20; // ok

        int(x); // OK, declares x as int
        foo(y); // Error!!
        bar(z); // Error!!

        return 0;
    }


why is foo(y) allowed at the global scope? and why is it disallowed at local scope?!!

BCS wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So Walter, I would like to please hear your opinion/decision
>>>> about C-Style declarations; are they here to stay? or will they
>>>> be deprecated at some point?
>>> 
>>> I'm hoping they will be deprecated before 1.0.  While this may
>>> mean a small amount of extra work porting headers, I think it's
>>> worthwhile.
>> 
>> I left them in because they do not cause any ambiguities or trouble
>>  with the D declaration syntax. It also significantly reduces the amount of work needed to translate code to D. I don't see a
>> compelling reason to remove them; just don't use them if you don't
>> like them.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/faq.html#q3
> 
> from http://www.digitalmars.com/d/overview.html
> 
> "Major Goals of D [...] * Make D substantially easier to implement a
> compiler for than C++."
> 
> If people don't want it, then it just adds unnecessarily to the task
> of making a compiler.

Count me in for the removal.

(I do know "some" people find them handy, but this particular detail does not stand in line with other D differences from C/C++ of lesser visibility.)

BCS wrote:
> If people don't want it, then it just adds unnecessarily to the task of making a compiler.

It doesn't add more than a few lines. See the code in DMD's parser.c that does it.