Max Samukha Wrote:
On 27.05.2010 13:37, Max Samukha wrote:
There was a discussion about those a while ago that terminated with
Andrei's authoritative it would be a step backward.
I am not entirely convinced that there had been a step forward in the
first place. Defining static
On 27.05.2010 13:37, Max Samukha wrote:
There was a discussion about those a while ago that terminated with
Andrei's authoritative it would be a step backward.
I am not entirely convinced that there had been a step forward in the
first place. Defining static construction order to be determined
There was a discussion about those a while ago that terminated with
Andrei's authoritative it would be a step backward.
I am not entirely convinced that there had been a step forward in the
first place. Defining static construction order to be determined by the
module import graph had been a
On 05/27/2010 01:37 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
module a;
mixin template Foo()
{
static immutable Object foo;
shared static this()
{
foo = cast(immutable)new Object;
}
}
module b;
import a;
import c;
mixin Foo;
module c;
import a;
import b;
mixin Foo;
In this scenario one is forced
Max Samukha Wrote:
There was a discussion about those a while ago that terminated with
Andrei's authoritative it would be a step backward.
I am not entirely convinced that there had been a step forward in the
first place. Defining static construction order to be determined by the
module
On 05/27/2010 03:47 PM, Jason House wrote:
In module b, delete the import of c. In module c, delete the import of b. Your sample code will then compile and run. It probably wouldn't do what you want though; you'll have two globals
(b.foo and c.foo). I suspect what you really want is one
On 2010-05-27 09:57:30 -0400, Max Samukha spam...@d-coding.com said:
We cannot impose on the user of Q_OBJECT the requirement that a and b
should not be circularly imported or that he has to manually call an
initialization function etc.
Just a small note...
In the D/Objective-C bridge, I've
On 27.05.2010 18:38, Michel Fortin wrote:
But it isn't thread-safe, and I
expect it would be a pain to make lazy initialization thread-safe,
although I haven't tried yet.
That has been the very point of this thread (no pun). In my other post I
supplied a hack that uses two variables, shared
