On Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 17:51:45 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
Introducing a commen calling convention would be one approach.
The other
would be to templatize D's inline assembler?
All the big compiler back ends are not realistically going to
implement some random calling convention
On Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 18:42:19 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Gor Gyolchanyan
gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com wrote:
Voldemort types (coined by Andrei Alexandrescu) are types,
which can't
be named. Like so:
auto getMisteriousData(int i)
{
struct Mysterious
On Monday, 23 April 2012 at 08:08:52 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/23/2012 01:56 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 21/04/2012 18:54, bearophile a écrit :
Jonathan M Davis:
There have been discussions about the comma operator before.
I don't
expect that it's going anywhere,
Maybe there are
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 11:30:52 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Le 16/04/2012 11:25, Walter Bright a écrit :
As for data that has no pointers, something has to indicate
that. Of
course, another strategy is to allocate such data in separate
pools. In
fact, that might be an excellent idea, as such
On Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 10:18:24 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/21/12, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
I think the liability here is that b needs to appear in two
places.
Andrei, how about this:
Note that I've had to make a constructor because I can't
On Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 16:55:34 UTC, F i L wrote:
ps. Mono-C#'s NRefactory, and Microsoft .Net's forthcoming
Roslyn Project are the only comparable infrastructures I can
think of with this level of reflection, and they're the
foundation to some pretty innovative new development tools.
On Tuesday, 28 February 2012 at 07:59:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because I think the matter is
of strategic importance.
We all felt for a long time that there's a lot of potential in
CTFE, and potential applications have been discussed more than
a
