On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 at 14:23:30 UTC, Michael V.
Franklin wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 19:38:44 UTC, Meta wrote:
I'd be interested in working on a DIP like this Michael, but I
also want to expand the scope to allowing UDAs on function
arguments as well. We should have some
On 30.11.2017 15:19, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/30/17 3:26 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 30.11.2017 00:23, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Looking at std.traits, it looks like we use this mechanism to get
everything:
int func(int param1)
static if(is(typeof(func) F == __parameters))
{
On 11/30/17 3:34 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 29.11.2017 20:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I would say:
struct attribute1{}
struct attribute2{}
int foo(@attribute1 int x){ return x; }
int bar(@attribute2 int y){ return y; }
pragma(msg, typeof()); // int function(@attribute1 int x)?
int
On 11/30/17 3:26 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 30.11.2017 00:23, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Looking at std.traits, it looks like we use this mechanism to get
everything:
int func(int param1)
static if(is(typeof(func) F == __parameters))
{
static assert(is(typeof(F[0]) == int));
static
On 29.11.2017 20:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I would say:
struct attribute1{}
struct attribute2{}
int foo(@attribute1 int x){ return x; }
int bar(@attribute2 int y){ return y; }
pragma(msg, typeof()); // int function(@attribute1 int x)?
int function(int)
...
Your suggestion is
On 30.11.2017 00:23, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/29/17 4:46 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 29.11.2017 20:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/29/17 2:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
OK, now I get what you are saying. In the same vein, I tested
applying attributes to functions themselves:
@("a")
On 11/29/17 4:46 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 29.11.2017 20:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/29/17 2:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
OK, now I get what you are saying. In the same vein, I tested applying
attributes to functions themselves:
@("a") int fun() { return 0; }
pragma(msg, typeof()); //
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 at 21:46:51 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 29.11.2017 20:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/29/17 2:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
OK, now I get what you are saying. In the same vein, I tested
applying attributes to functions themselves:
@("a") int fun() { return 0; }
On 29.11.2017 20:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/29/17 2:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
OK, now I get what you are saying. In the same vein, I tested applying
attributes to functions themselves:
@("a") int fun() { return 0; }
pragma(msg, typeof()); // int function()
@("b") int gun() {
On 11/29/17 2:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
OK, now I get what you are saying. In the same vein, I tested applying
attributes to functions themselves:
@("a") int fun() { return 0; }
pragma(msg, typeof()); // int function()
@("b") int gun() { return 1; }
pragma(msg, typeof()); // int function()
On 29.11.2017 19:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/29/17 12:20 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. Function types _contain_ parameter
declarations. (Including attributes and default initializers.)
I too, am confused. I thought you meant that the types of the
On 11/29/17 12:20 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. Function types _contain_ parameter
declarations. (Including attributes and default initializers.)
I too, am confused. I thought you meant that the types of the parameters
would have attributes that might
On 29.11.2017 17:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/29/17 11:45 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 29.11.2017 17:21, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/29/2017 07:53 AM, Seb wrote:
UDAs for function arguments would be really awesome to have.
They should be part of the same DIP. -- Andrei
More
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 at 16:45:04 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 29.11.2017 17:21, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/29/2017 07:53 AM, Seb wrote:
UDAs for function arguments would be really awesome to have.
They should be part of the same DIP. -- Andrei
More generally, any declaration
On 11/29/17 11:45 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 29.11.2017 17:21, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/29/2017 07:53 AM, Seb wrote:
UDAs for function arguments would be really awesome to have.
They should be part of the same DIP. -- Andrei
More generally, any declaration should ideally support
On 29.11.2017 17:21, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/29/2017 07:53 AM, Seb wrote:
UDAs for function arguments would be really awesome to have.
They should be part of the same DIP. -- Andrei
More generally, any declaration should ideally support UDAs.
One issue with UDAs on function
On 11/29/2017 07:53 AM, Seb wrote:
UDAs for function arguments would be really awesome to have.
They should be part of the same DIP. -- Andrei
On 2017-11-29 13:53, Seb wrote:
UDAs for function arguments would be really awesome to have. Just
imagine how nice the Vibe.d web routes would look like:
auto postUser(@body User user, @errors Errors errors)
Instead of:
@body("user")
@errorDisplay
auto postUsers(User _user, string _error)
On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 19:38:44 UTC, Meta wrote:
I'd be interested in working on a DIP like this Michael, but I
also want to expand the scope to allowing UDAs on function
arguments as well. We should have some solid use cases in mind;
let's take this to private email.
I'm on IRC
On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 19:38:44 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 02:20:15 UTC, Michael V.
Franklin wrote:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 13:35:13 UTC, Michael V.
Franklin wrote:
What's the official word? Does it require a DIP?
For those who might want to know,
On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 02:20:15 UTC, Michael V. Franklin
wrote:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 13:35:13 UTC, Michael V.
Franklin wrote:
What's the official word? Does it require a DIP?
For those who might want to know, Walter has informed me that
this change will require a DIP.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 18:24:27 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 2017-11-28 03:20, Michael V. Franklin wrote:
> > For those who might want to know, Walter has informed me that this
> > change will require a DIP.
>
> That's unfortunate. It should be the opposite, a DIP on why
On 2017-11-28 03:20, Michael V. Franklin wrote:
For those who might want to know, Walter has informed me that this
change will require a DIP.
That's unfortunate. It should be the opposite, a DIP on why enum members
should not support attributes. It goes against consistency (turtles all
the
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 13:35:13 UTC, Michael V. Franklin
wrote:
What's the official word? Does it require a DIP?
For those who might want to know, Walter has informed me that
this change will require a DIP. I already have two DIPs in the
queue right now, so I wouldn't mind if
24 matches
Mail list logo
