I wanted to suggest a feature similar to inout: conditional purity. That is,
sometimes a function is pure iff the delegates passed to it are pure, and as
of right now, I don't think there's any way to document this other than by
overloading the function as a template (which results in lots of code
%u Wrote:
> I wanted to suggest a feature similar to inout: conditional purity. That is,
> sometimes a function is pure iff the delegates passed to it are pure,
I think this is useless. If this is possible, then you just mark every single
not-pure function in the program with @conditionally_pure
> I think this is useless. If this is possible, then you just mark every single
not-pure function in the program with @conditionally_pure, and we are back to
the
beginning.
Oh, but that's not what I meant! I meant something like this:
int call(TFn)(TFn fn) pure(isPure!(TFn))
if (isCallab
%u:
> Oh, but that's not what I meant! I meant something like this:
>
> int call(TFn)(TFn fn) pure(isPure!(TFn))
> if (isCallable!(TFn))
> {
> return fn(5);
> }
>
> This way we specify purity based on a static boolean.
I see. I'd like a more general-purpose solution, something t
> I see. I'd like a more general-purpose solution, something that works with
nothrow too and other future attributes too.
Funny, that was going to be my next comment. :)
The only thing that scares me a bit is that code like this:
public(isPublic!(TFn)) static(isStatic!(TFn)) int memoize(TFn)(TFn
nothrow too and other future attributes too.
Funny, that was going to be my next comment. :)
The only thing that scares me a bit is that code like this:
public(isPublic!(TFn)) static(isStatic!(TFn)) int memoize(TFn)(TFn fn)
pure(isPure!(TFn))
if (isCallable!(TFn))
{
//etc.
}
A ques
%u:
> might turn out a bit unreadable. And, furthermore, I'd *like* to be able to
> say
> something like "this method returns a shared const value iff the given type
> is int
> or long" but this won't work with const() or shared() because of their syntax
> (you
> can't say const(is(T == int))).
>> Any ideas on how we might be able to get that to work?
> @optional_tag(is(T == int) || is(T == long)), const)
Ouch... a bit less pretty than I'd hoped (the underscore makes it a bit ugly
IMHO). Does it really need to be a tag, though? Why not just:
optional(const, is(T == int) || is(T == lon
On 2011-01-22 21:34:52 -0500, %u said:
Any ideas on how we might be able to get that to work?
@optional_tag(is(T == int) || is(T == long)), const)
Ouch... a bit less pretty than I'd hoped (the underscore makes it a bit ugly
IMHO). Does it really need to be a tag, though? Why not just:
opt
On Saturday 22 January 2011 14:41:08 %u wrote:
> > I think this is useless. If this is possible, then you just mark every
> > single
>
> not-pure function in the program with @conditionally_pure, and we are back
> to the beginning.
>
>
> Oh, but that's not what I meant! I meant something like th
10 matches
Mail list logo
