== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article
> [snip]
> We really need to add a way to have a function marked as nothrow and/or pure
> based on whether the functions that it calls are nothrow and/or pure. Whether
> that should require listing the functions that need to be pure and
This phrase gave me an idea for a small feat:
deprecated(2009-4-19) void foo();
Compiling references to the deprecated declaration *before* the deprecation
date would result in a *warning*.
Compiling the deprecated declaration OR any reference to it *after* the date
would result in an *error*.
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> OK, then what about:
>
> void foo()
> in { ... }
> out { ... }
> { ... }
>
> the 'body' keyword is completely arbitrary. There is no ambiguity here.
>
> Also, I almost never use contracts because of their verbosity. It's
> much shorter - and functionally equivalen
Sergey Gromov Wrote:
> Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:38:23 -0500, Tomasz Sowiński wrote:
>
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> >
> >> It looks nice, but has a subtle and disastrous problem. In D, arguments
> >> are fully resolved *before* overloading is done. If some of the
&
Walter Bright Wrote:
> It looks nice, but has a subtle and disastrous problem. In D, arguments
> are fully resolved *before* overloading is done. If some of the
> overloads have with declarations, then there's a nightmarish problem of
> trying to mix overloading and argument resolution together
Ideas for features based on the with.
The with can make calling functions with enum arguments sexier. So instead of:
auto d = dirEntries(".", SpanMode.breadth);
you could say:
auto d = dirEntries(".", breadth);
by declaring the function as:
dirEntries(string path, with SpanMode mode);// "wit
