On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 13:18 +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 02-01-2012 06:25, Gou Lingfeng wrote:
D's definitions of is and == have so much redundency. That might
indicate some flaw. If references and values (for classes and arrays)
could be clearly distinguished in the syntax
On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 06:43 +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/03/2012 06:10 AM, Gou Lingfeng wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 13:18 +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 02-01-2012 06:25, Gou Lingfeng wrote:
D's definitions of is and == have so much redundency. That might
indicate some flaw
D's definitions of is and == have so much redundency. That might
indicate some flaw. If references and values (for classes and arrays)
could be clearly distinguished in the syntax, the is operator is not
necessary at all.
A related thing is element-wise operation. Consider
string[] a;
string[] b;
