Bug 944 – Updated file.d

Status
RESOLVED
Resolution
LATER
Severity
trivial
Priority
P3
Component
phobos
Product
D
Version
D1 (retired)
Platform
All
OS
All
Creation time
2007-02-09T15:30:00Z
Last change time
2014-02-16T15:22:56Z
Keywords
ddoc, patch
Assigned to
bugzilla
Creator
arkangath
Blocks
677

Attachments

IDFilenameSummaryContent-TypeSize
99file.zipProposed new file.dapplication/zip21617

Comments

Comment #0 by arkangath — 2007-02-09T15:30:38Z
I have reviewed syntax and DDoc documentation on file file.d of Phobos. I also changed some "int" to "bool" and some other stuff. I included in an attachment the diff file, the modified file.d and the original file.d
Comment #1 by arkangath — 2007-02-09T15:36:26Z
Created attachment 99 Proposed new file.d Feedback about changes will be welcomed. I intend to update other phobos files, so it'd be nice to know what I can or cannot modify. One more thing, I didn't change function parameters neither function names, just some function return values (from int to bool). I'd like to know if the function isfile() should be changed to isFile() (to conform with D style notation http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dstyle.html), but because this would break functionality, I didn't do it.
Comment #2 by smjg — 2007-02-09T20:04:37Z
Could rename it and make the old name a deprecated alias.
Comment #3 by bugzilla — 2007-03-20T02:49:18Z
The problems with the edits are, they are nearly all whitespace or reformatting changes. It's hard to see if there are any substantive changes, as one must manually (and very carefully) compare each different line, only to find that they only differ by whitespace. The other problem is that changing the return values from int to bool introduces binary backwards incompatibility, which should only done if there are catastrophic problems. Since std.file is debugged and working, I am reluctant to do cosmetic changes to it; such cosmetic changes should be deferred until the code is worked on for more substantive reasons.
Comment #4 by smjg — 2007-03-20T10:17:48Z
Indeed, I should've noticed sooner that you hadn't read issue 677 comment 4.