1) implicit constructor conversion like in c++
2)import with *  like in java import  xx.xx.*
3)char[10] s=new char[10]{a,b,c,d,.....};
thanks

d user. escribió:
> 1) implicit constructor conversion like in c++

I don't know what is it.

> 2)import with *  like in java import  xx.xx.*

I don't know why, but I guess it's because searching a symbol in a package in D is not like searching a type in a package in Java. In Java you just need to look for a file named like the type, while in D you need to parse the whole module, maybe do semantic analysis, and then see where the symbol is.

> 3)char[10] s=new char[10]{a,b,c,d,.....};

char[10] c = [ 'a', 'b', 'c', ... ];

"d user." <cortigenb6@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fvlmpo$2bgq$1@digitalmars.com...
> 1) implicit constructor conversion like in c++

This behavior is usually only useful for value types.  Value types in D are handled by structs, not classes.  And for structs, there is the (really really questionable design..) static opCall:

struct S
{
    int value;

    static S opCall(int x)
    {
        S ret;
        ret.value = x;
        return ret;
    }
}

...

S s = 5; // equvalent to S s = S(5)

D2 will be introducing proper constructors for structs.

> 2)import with *  like in java import  xx.xx.*

Ask most Java or Python programmers and you'll get a response similar to that of "goto".  They're questionably useful and tend to lead to sloppy style, unclear dependencies, and longer compile times.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> 2)import with *  like in java import  xx.xx.*
> 
> Ask most Java or Python programmers and you'll get a response similar to that of "goto".  They're questionably useful and tend to lead to sloppy style, unclear dependencies, and longer compile times.

I suggest instead creating an "all.d" file that consists of just a bunch of imports that are needed, then just import all;