On Mar 21, 11 18:26, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 11:09, schrieb KennyTM~:
On Mar 21, 11 16:17, Don wrote:
I agree. But unfortunately, the idea is a relatively complicated feature
with a lot of special cases. For example, this(this.bla, this.bla){}
'int f(int x, int x) {}' is a syntax
Don:
> 'pure', for example, is roughly the same level of
> implementation complexity as this feature.
If this is true, then this is amazing :-) Considering that pure is probably
about 60-70% implemented in D (no way to perform conditional purity, no good
management of special cases, your last
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 11:09, schrieb KennyTM~:
On Mar 21, 11 16:17, Don wrote:
I agree. But unfortunately, the idea is a relatively complicated feature
with a lot of special cases. For example, this(this.bla, this.bla){}
'int f(int x, int x) {}' is a syntax error. So should 'this(
spir wrote:
On 03/21/2011 12:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting
thing. Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference
semantics and to populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple
classes.
Time ago I and other
Am 21.03.2011 11:09, schrieb KennyTM~:
> On Mar 21, 11 16:17, Don wrote:
>>
>> I agree. But unfortunately, the idea is a relatively complicated feature
>> with a lot of special cases. For example, this(this.bla, this.bla){}
>
> 'int f(int x, int x) {}' is a syntax error. So should 'this(this.x,
>
On Mar 21, 11 16:17, Don wrote:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 00:55, schrieb bearophile:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting
thing. Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference
semantics and to populate fields in a plain way, expecially for
On 03/21/2011 12:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting thing.
Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference semantics and to
populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple classes.
Time ago I and other people have s
Am 21.03.2011 09:17, schrieb Don:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 21.03.2011 00:55, schrieb bearophile:
>>> Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting thing.
>>> Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference semantics and
>>> to populate fields in a plain way,
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 00:55, schrieb bearophile:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting
thing. Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference
semantics and to populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple
classes.
Time ago I a
Am 21.03.2011 00:55, schrieb bearophile:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting thing.
Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference semantics and to
populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple classes.
Time ago I and other people have su
Adam D. Ruppe:
> Have you tried doing this with a string mixin? It looks like
> it'd be trivial.
It's probably trivial with a string mixin, but no thanks. I don't like them a
lot.
Bye,
bearophile
Have you tried doing this with a string mixin? It looks like
it'd be trivial.
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting thing.
Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference semantics and to
populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple classes.
Time ago I and other people have suggested a syntax like (this also to avoid a
13 matches
Mail list logo
