I disagree that `traits` and `constraints` are the same.
Constraint is a specific case of a trait which returns boolean
value and has semantical from of `isSomething`. Trait is pretty
much any static reflection utility, whatever it does.
On Wednesday, 19 November 2014 at 18:22:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 06:06:26PM +, Nick Treleaven via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 14/11/2014 21:52, David Nadlinger wrote:
>On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
>wrote:
>>std.range.c
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 06:06:26PM +, Nick Treleaven via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 14/11/2014 21:52, David Nadlinger wrote:
> >On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> >>std.range.checks
> >
> >For this, std.range.constraints would also be perfectly fine.
>
> If
On 14/11/2014 21:52, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
std.range.checks
For this, std.range.constraints would also be perfectly fine.
If it's not too late, can we change the name to std.range.traits? It
seems better as they can be us
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 22:22:17 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 21:52:04 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
std.range.checks
For this, std.range.constraints would also be perfectly fine.
The point
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 22:47:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
As far as I understand idea is exactly to separate it (while
release has not happened and it is not too late)
(that was my original proposal when reviewing PR too)
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 22:22:17 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 21:52:04 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
std.range.checks
For this, std.range.constraints would also be perfectly fine.
The point
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:22:16PM +, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 21:52:04 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> >On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> >>std.range.checks
> >
> >For this, std.range.constraints would also be pe
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 21:52:04 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
std.range.checks
For this, std.range.constraints would also be perfectly fine.
The point is that the module also contains the array->range
adapters that ar
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:56:33AM +0300, Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> 15-Nov-2014 00:17, Dicebot пишет:
> >std.range.primitives ?
>
> +1
[...]
Mmmm, I like that.
T
--
The diminished 7th chord is the most flexible and fear-instilling chord. Use it
often, use it unsparingly, t
15-Nov-2014 00:17, Dicebot пишет:
std.range.primitives ?
+1
--
Dmitry Olshansky
On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
std.range.checks
For this, std.range.constraints would also be perfectly fine. The
point is that the module also contains the array->range adapters
that are definitely not constraints, checks, or however else you
might call
std.range.primitives ?
On 14/11/2014 6:30 p.m., H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Recently, some good progress has been made in cleaning up the messy web
of imports between Phobos modules, so that importing one module for a
single function won't also pull in half of Phobos. Part of this work has
been to separate the
14 matches
Mail list logo
