On 03-01-2012 07:53, Gou Lingfeng wrote:
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
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, the is operator is not
necessary at all.
Of course it is. 'is' is
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, the is
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. If references and values (for classes and arrays)
could be
On 01/03/2012 12:10 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. If references and values (for classes and arrays)
could be
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. If
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;
