On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 at 00:01:28 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 7/7/18 11:06 PM, FeepingCreature wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 23:37:30 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
As for alignment, GC, and possibly other things, the code was
not intended as a complete implementation of Nullable, only
On 7/7/18 11:06 PM, FeepingCreature wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 23:37:30 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
As for alignment, GC, and possibly other things, the code was not
intended as a complete implementation of Nullable, only to show that
an actual member of type T is not necessary. These
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 23:37:30 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
As for alignment, GC, and possibly other things, the code was
not intended as a complete implementation of Nullable, only to
show that an actual member of type T is not necessary. These
issues are fixable, if perhaps nontrivial in
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 12:31:50 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 12:10:58 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
The rest looks sensible to me, but I have to say this is
bollocks. This Nullable never has to construct an S.init:
struct Nullable(T) {
ubyte[T.sizeof] _payload;
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 12:10:58 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
The rest looks sensible to me, but I have to say this is
bollocks. This Nullable never has to construct an S.init:
struct Nullable(T) {
ubyte[T.sizeof] _payload;
bool _hasValue;
Come on, at least make it a union with a
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 10:44:09 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
Why is this a problem? ("Just don't use S.init!")
Well, for one it makes Nullable!S impossible. Nullable, if it
is to be @nogc, *necessarily* has to construct an S.init struct
member.
The rest looks sensible to me, but I have to
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 10:44:09 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
Consider the humble struct S
{
Object obj;
invariant
{
assert(this.obj !is null);
}
@disable this();
this(Object obj)
in(obj !is null)
{
this.obj = obj;
}
}
Oops - there should of
I believe there's a good case that struct invariants should not
be called on struct destruction. Significantly, I believe that
Phobos, in particular `moveEmplace`, is already written as if
this is the case, even though it is not specified anywhere.
It is very common for structs' .init to
