Michel Fortin napisał: > > Thanks for doing this. Is it approved by Walter? > > Depends on what you mean by "approved". > > He commented once on the newsgroup after I posted an earlier version of > the patch, saying I should add tests for type deduction and some other > stuff. This change his something he attempted to do in the past and > failed, I expect him to be skeptical.
It would be much easier if he provided the specific case(s) which broke his teeth. Then we'll all know where's the problem. If it's soluble, it'll open the door to tail type modifiers in general, not just in classes. It's a burning issue e.g. with ranges (mostly struct). http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5377 Look at the attachment to get a feel of what hoops we'll have to jump through to side-step lack of tail X. > I guess he'll review it when he > has the time and I hope he'll merge these changes in the mainline. > He'll probably want to take his time however, since it can break > existing code in some cases; it's basically a change to the language. > > If you want to show your support, I guess you can vote up the > enhancement request in the bugzilla. > <http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5325> > > Also feel free to compile it, test it, and share your experience. The > more tested it is, the more used and appreciated it is, the more > exposure it gets, the sooner it gets approved, or so I guess. I'd love to, but I'm putting shreds of my spare time to xml. -- Tomek
