Derek Parnell:
> Yes, this is the legacy we now must keep.

I am willing to modify the D2 code written by everyone before April 22 2009 to remove the /+ +/ and replace it with the /* */, once the latter are nestable :-) (Mostly it's Phobos2, I presume).

Bye,
bearophile

bearophile wrote:
> What is the advantage of having a separate /+ +/ nestable comment syntax?
> Can't the /+ +/ be removed to make the normal /* */ syntax nestable?
> (IS the different C semantics of /* */ a problem here? I don't think so.)

Sometimes it's handy to have non-nesting comments.

For example, when debugging something, I sometimes use:
---
foo();
/*
bar();
/*
baz();
//*/
---
So I can quickly remove the first '/*' (by prepending '/') to uncomment bar() but not baz().

Also, Walter may feel differently about the C-compatibility thing than you do :).

> The std.intrinsic module may gain a standard way to perform a 64-bit by 32-bit division, for the situations where you know the quotient will fit in 32 bits ('divl' instruction on X86).
> CPUs that don't support such operation can use the normal 64-big division.

That just sounds like a possible compiler optimization for
---
ulong L;
uint I;
// initialize L & I
auto result = cast(uint)(L / I);
---

Hello Nick,

> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
> news:hn975kl8v6wa.bjme1g5z2jj3$.dlg@40tude.net...
> 
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:55:03 +0000 (UTC), BCS wrote:
>> 
>>> /**/ has well defined semantics,
>>> 
>> ... in the C programming language ...
>> 

Yes, exactly my point.

>>> changing it will cause problems that replacing it will not.
>>> 
>> The "well defined semantics" are not god-given axioms, or to rephrase
>> it, because something is 'thus' in C does not mean that it must also
>> be 'thus' in any other programming language.
>> 
>> For something to be in a programming language, it needs to be
>> justified on its own terms rather than only using precedent as its
>> rationale to exist.
>> 

Precedent is a good reason to exist in /some given form/ if it is to exist at all.

> I agree with you on this, however I think what they meant was that
> (unless I'm mistaken) /**/ also behaves the same way in every other
> language that actually uses /**/ for comments.
> 

So, ditto Nick on that one.