Doc Comments /
FAQ
Difference (last change) (Author, normal page display)
Deleted: 10,15d9
|
=== Why not extend array operations to full Fortran90 power ? === Compare (1) Y[] = X[]*X[]; (2) Y[] = sin( X[] ); With gdc 4.4.6, (1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas (2) is not allowed (fails at compile time). Why? The semantics of (2) is unambiguous, and it works wonderfully in Fortran90. -- JoachimWuttke? November 13, 2011 20:42 CET |
 |
|
Comments 
Add your comments here...
Why are executables so huge?
Fallthrough on switch statements
The reason D doesn't change this is ... to make code that looks the same as in C operate the same. If it had subtly different semantics, it will cause frustratingly subtle bugs.
This argument would only apply to an implicit break. If, like C#, D required you to write one of {break|return|throw}, there's no subtlety or surprise.
I'm not questioning the decision here - every once in a while fallthrough is really rather useful - just the rationale given.
- And there can even be a statement to indicate that you really do want a fallthrough. Moreover, it doesn't state what was wrong with replacing the switch syntax with something more structured - like
NG:D/22722. -- StewartGordon July 28, 2005 14:38 CET
More Information
Can I link in C object files created with another compiler?
Should mention a download link for coffimplib: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/coffimplib.zip
Why doesn't D have an interface to C++ as well as C?
For more reasons on why D doesn't "call some arbitrary C++ code that is presumed to be
unmodifiable", see Accessing C++ code from D.
Where can I get an IDE for D?
See also Editor Support for more tools for editing D source code.
Specification Page