Re: d-mode.el

[Sam S. <sd...@gn...>]

> * In message <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302141246390.14968-100000@tatara-ba>
> * On the subject of "Re: d-mode.el"
> * Sent on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:48:14 -0500 (EST)
> * Honorable Dan Knapp <da...@ch...> writes:
>
>   Well, one of the things which the .d preprocessors do is cope with
> declarations interspersed with code, rather than directly preceding
> it.  So there's also the question of whether using the well-known
> standard C syntax is worth abandoning that.  My answer is a resounding
> yes.

I thought that ANSI C (1999) did permit this.

At any rate, I wholeheartedly agree that using the standard C syntax is
just as important as translating the German comments and for the same
reason - lowering the barrier to entry.

Any volunteers to do this?


-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat8 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
Linux - find out what you've been missing while you've been rebooting Windows