http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543
--- Comment #13 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-03-09 16:36:19 PST --- (In reply to comment #12) > > I didn't know at first that you wanted to point this out (probably was too > distracted by your code example). > It seems to me in general that it could be beneficial to the quality of your contributions if you would spend more time reading and less time writing. ;) > > So, with inout_t you would write: > class C { > int[] arr; > this(int[] a){arr = a;} > int opApply(int delegate(ref inout_t(int)) dg) inout { > foreach(ref e; arr) > if(auto r = dg(e)) return r; > return 0; > } > } > This is an interesting suggestion. There are some other ideas discussed here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/jhr0t6$24v6$1...@digitalmars.com > BTW: If D didn't have transitive const, you could implement it with inout_t > like this: > struct S{inout_t(S)* next;} This is moot. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------