Bruno Medeiros wrote:
I think he means that any use of an @unimplemented class should give a
warning/error/other message.
I think you definitely get an error when trying to use a commented out
class/struct... :)
Absolutely. But such a class/struct would also not show up in
documentation,
On 03/02/2011 01:48, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 16:16:00 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 2/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Usually the thing to do would be to either comment them out or put an
> assert(0)
Can't do that with classes and struct.
On Friday 04 February 2011 06:42:20 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 2/4/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 February 2011 20:51:01 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> >> Ah, I've just realized we already have the @disable attribute. This is
> >> practically what I was looking for.
> >
> > That's more
On 2/4/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday 03 February 2011 20:51:01 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> Ah, I've just realized we already have the @disable attribute. This is
>> practically what I was looking for.
>
> That's more for doing stuff like disabling functions which the compiler
> normally
On Thursday 03 February 2011 20:51:01 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Ah, I've just realized we already have the @disable attribute. This is
> practically what I was looking for.
That's more for doing stuff like disabling functions which the compiler
normally
takes care of if you don't - such as opAssi
Ah, I've just realized we already have the @disable attribute. This is
practically what I was looking for.
On 2/3/11, Gerrit Wichert wrote:
> Am 02.02.2011 23:59, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic:
>> But what about structs/classes/functions/etc which are partially
>> implemented, but still unusable? Marking them with deprecated doesn't
>> make sense, as this will likely confuse both the user and the library
>>
Am 02.02.2011 23:59, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic:
> But what about structs/classes/functions/etc which are partially
> implemented, but still unusable? Marking them with deprecated doesn't
> make sense, as this will likely confuse both the user and the library
> writers. Would it be overkill to introdu
On Thursday 03 February 2011 03:02:04 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-02-03 00:38, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
> > Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> >> We know what a Deprecated Attribute is for:
> >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#deprecated.
> >>
> >> You can use a compiler switch to enable us
On 2011-02-03 00:38, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
We know what a Deprecated Attribute is for:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#deprecated.
You can use a compiler switch to enable using these:
-d
allow deprecated features
But what about structs/classes/functions/e
On Feb 3, 11 06:59, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
We know what a Deprecated Attribute is for:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#deprecated.
You can use a compiler switch to enable using these:
-d
allow deprecated features
But what about structs/classes/functions/etc which are partia
Yeah, I had a hunch it would be overkill. Well that's why I'm asking,
not proposing. :p
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 17:48:05 Simen kjaeraas wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 16:16:00 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> >> On 2/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> > Usually the thing to do would be to either comment them out or put an
> >> > assert(0)
> >>
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 16:16:00 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 2/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Usually the thing to do would be to either comment them out or put an
> assert(0)
Can't do that with classes and struct.
??? You can comment out classes and structs
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 16:16:00 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 2/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Usually the thing to do would be to either comment them out or put an
> > assert(0)
>
> Can't do that with classes and struct.
??? You can comment out classes and structs just fine. You can a
Well, then I suggest they be used in Phobos when a function isn't
implemented. Pretty please!
Oh, I meant Druntime. :p
== Quote from Andrej Mitrovic (andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com)'s article
> On 2/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >
> > Usually the thing to do would be to either comment them out or put an
> > assert(0)
> Can't do that with classes and struct.
> > Regardless, I question the wisdom in adding something
On 2/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
> Usually the thing to do would be to either comment them out or put an
> assert(0)
Can't do that with classes and struct.
> Regardless, I question the wisdom in adding something into the
> language which _encourages_ you to leave in unfinished code.
>
My u
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 14:59:53 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> We know what a Deprecated Attribute is for:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#deprecated.
>
> You can use a compiler switch to enable using these:
> -d
> allow deprecated features
>
> But what about structs/clas
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
We know what a Deprecated Attribute is for:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#deprecated.
You can use a compiler switch to enable using these:
-d
allow deprecated features
But what about structs/classes/functions/etc which are partially
implemented, but
We know what a Deprecated Attribute is for:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#deprecated.
You can use a compiler switch to enable using these:
-d
allow deprecated features
But what about structs/classes/functions/etc which are partially
implemented, but still unusable? Marking t
22 matches
Mail list logo
