Someone mentioned to me that scope declarations, e.g.
scope class A{}
or
scope A myNewObject;
are being removed from the language. Is this true? If so, how will RAII-type
classes be implemented?
Sadly true.
They intend to replace it with a library based solution, I don't know why.
I don't understand it either. AFAIK they are being removed because
they're unsafe, and are being replaced by an unsafe library solution.
Andrej Mitrovic:
> I don't understand it either. AFAIK they are being removed because
> they're unsafe, and are being replaced by an unsafe library solution.
I have hated see typedef and scoped classes go (I have even missed delete), but
you need a bit of faith in the future and in Andrei & Walt
I don't understand it either. AFAIK they are being removed because
they're unsafe, and are being replaced by an unsafe library solution.
I have the same feeling.
While I do understand why typedef is poorly designed
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467) I can't imagine how a
li
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:11:48 +0200, Trass3r wrote:
Sadly true.
They intend to replace it with a library based solution, I don't know
why.
If the library solution is as good as the original, it is a big plus.
If only we could do the same for everything!
On Friday 21 January 2011 06:10:26 Sean Eskapp wrote:
> Someone mentioned to me that scope declarations, e.g.
>
> scope class A{}
> or
> scope A myNewObject;
>
> are being removed from the language. Is this true? If so, how will
> RAII-type classes be implemented?
std.typecons.scoped is the repl
scope declarations are going away because they're inherently unsafe.
Pointers are inherently unsafe as well ;)
On Monday 24 January 2011 00:37:40 Trass3r wrote:
> > scope declarations are going away because they're inherently unsafe.
>
> Pointers are inherently unsafe as well ;)
Well, you can't take those out of the core language and put them in the
standard
library. And there _are_ cases where pointers
bearophile Wrote:
> If you remove it, you will have plenty of time in future to add it back, add
> something better implementation of it, or to find a better and very different
> solution, or even to add a more general language feature that allows you to
> implement the original half-broken fea
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:03:19 -0500, so wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:11:48 +0200, Trass3r wrote:
Sadly true.
They intend to replace it with a library based solution, I don't know
why.
If the library solution is as good as the original, it is a big plus.
If only we could do the same for e
On 1/24/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> This means, you can "scope" a class inside another statement instead of
> having to declare/initialize it separately. It solves a bug I filed:
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2070
>
> -Steve
>
That is pretty cool. What I worried about i
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:41:30 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 1/24/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This means, you can "scope" a class inside another statement instead of
having to declare/initialize it separately. It solves a bug I filed:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=207
On 1/24/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> That wasn't done by the compiler anyways.
>
> -Steve
>
Yeah I've noticed that. Lazy DMD compiler! :)
On Monday 24 January 2011 07:49:44 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 1/24/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > That wasn't done by the compiler anyways.
> >
> > -Steve
>
> Yeah I've noticed that. Lazy DMD compiler! :)
Much of anything that requires code flow analysis doesn't tend to happen. And
it's
Jonathan M Davis:
> Much of anything that requires code flow analysis doesn't tend to happen.
Right. You need (lot of) work to implement it, in a system language it can't be
fully accurate, and it may slow down compilation a little (Scala compiler is
powerful, but I don't think it's very fast).
16 matches
Mail list logo
