On Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 18:56:36 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 12:17:46 UTC, Barry wrote:
http://joeduffyblog.com/2016/11/30/15-years-of-concurrency/
delegate void PureFunc() immutable;
This meant that a lambda conforming to the PureFunc interface
could only cl
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 19:14:51 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 18:56:36 UTC, qznc wrote:
That is an interesting idea. Afaik, D does not allow to limit
closure like this?
void i_only_accept_immutable_context (void delegate ()
immutable closure);
NB: it may have
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 18:56:36 UTC, qznc wrote:
That is an interesting idea. Afaik, D does not allow to limit
closure like this?
void i_only_accept_immutable_context (void delegate () immutable
closure);
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 12:17:46 UTC, Barry wrote:
http://joeduffyblog.com/2016/11/30/15-years-of-concurrency/
delegate void PureFunc() immutable;
This meant that a lambda conforming to the PureFunc interface
could only close over immutable state.
Notice how powerful this has su
http://joeduffyblog.com/2016/11/30/15-years-of-concurrency/
D gets a brief, but good plug:
D
The system we came up with has obvious comparisons to D’s take on
const and immutable; just as D’s const is a view over mutable or
immutable data, so too is our readonly. And just as D added
deepness
