On 11 March 2012 14:56, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote: > On 03/11/2012 12:50 PM, Manu wrote: > >> Nobody has acknowledged >> or disputed the majority of my points :/ >> > > I agree with the majority of your points. >
Cool, well that's encouraging :) I can't really argue the implementation details, all I can do is assert criteria/requirements as I see them. So what was the perceived issue with the pull request you mentioned in an earlier post? I presume it only implemented the syntax, and not the ABI bits? On 11 March 2012 15:08, David Nadlinger <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote: > On Sunday, 11 March 2012 at 03:04:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> This analogy is tenuous for D because functions are defined to return one >> type, e.g. typeof(fun(args)) is defined. Once we get into disallowing that >> for certain functions, we're looking at major language changes for little >> benefit. >> > > TypeTuple!(ReturnType1, ReturnType2)? Right, well I'm glad I'm not the only one :) I figured this must have some important implication that I totally missed...
