On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 16:47:58 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 15:31:43 UTC, Martin wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 15:07:29 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:58:02 UTC, Martin wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:55:19 UTC, bearophi
On Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 09:24:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
alias this is supposed to completely replace opDot, and it's
far more flexible
than opDot, so there's really no reason to have opDot anymore.
For whatever
reason, opDot doesn't appear to have been actually deprecated
yet, bu
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 09:47:54 Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 21:23:04 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > I guess the main issue is that alias blah this; shouldn't have
> > made it into the grammar in the first place. But this was
> > obviously done in order to estab
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 21:23:04 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I guess the main issue is that alias blah this; shouldn't have
made it into the grammar in the first place. But this was
obviously done in order to establish a broken analogy to the
other uses of alias. Either alias this=blah; must
didn't fully formulate that thought:
above examples vs. the following
struct Fraction
{
long numerator;
long denominator;
double value() const @property
{
return cast(double)numerator / denominator;
}
auto opPseudonym() { /* points to value() ? */ }
alias op
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 23:20:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
auto opPseudonym() { ... }
alias opPseudonym=foo;
Isn't that creating multiple functions for the same thing?
struct Fraction
{
long numerator;
long denominator;
double value() const @property
{
return ca
On 02/23/2013 12:10 AM, Joshua Niehus wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 21:23:04 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
[snip].. or the alias this syntax should be deprecated in favour of a
specially named member function.
pseudonym foo;
auto opPseudonym() { ... }
alias opPseudonym=foo;
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 21:23:04 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
[snip].. or the alias this syntax should be deprecated in
favour of a specially named member function.
pseudonym foo;
There is no justification for this.
I guess the main issue is that alias blah this; shouldn't have
made it into the grammar in the first place. But this was
obviously done in order to establish a broken analogy to the
other uses of alias. Either alias this=blah; must be kept or
the alias this
On 02/22/2013 07:30 PM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:38:48 -0800
schrieb Ali Çehreli :
I appreciate everybody's contributions to D but that is not an
intention, that is a change to dmd that caused a regression. A syntax
that used to work in the previous version simply stopped worki
On 02/22/2013 03:51 PM, Martin wrote:
struct Test
{
int i;
alias this = i;
}
Worked fine in 2.061 but in 2.062 I get the errors
"Error: no identifier for declarator this" and "Error: alias cannot have
initializer".
Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
It is (embarra
Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That
syntax is allowed still for other aliases.
Bye,
bearophile
I see, thanks. What was the reason for not allowing alias
this = identifier?
Requiring lookahead when parsing.
Al
On 2/22/13, Marco Leise wrote:
> That said I started using "alias this = ..." as well and was
> surprised it was removed, but noticed it in time as a DFeed
> line on IRC.
It will be documented in the changelog once
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/pull/284
is p
Am Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:38:48 -0800
schrieb Ali Çehreli :
> I appreciate everybody's contributions to D but that is not an
> intention, that is a change to dmd that caused a regression. A syntax
> that used to work in the previous version simply stopped working in
> 2.062. That is the definition
On 02/22/2013 09:27 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 02/22/2013 09:08 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 02/22/2013 06:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
> Martin:
>
>> Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
>
> It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That syntax is
> allowed still for other
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 17:38:49 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I appreciate everybody's contributions to D but that is not an
intention, that is a change to dmd that caused a regression. A
syntax that used to work in the previous version simply stopped
working in 2.062. That is the definition
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 17:38:49 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I have a feeling that there must have been some newsgroup
discussions as well but unfortunately I must have been busy
with other things at the time. Not all of us read github.
Ali
You should not have to, and this is a problem w
On 02/22/2013 09:28 AM, kenji hara wrote:
> 2013/2/23 Ali Çehreli
>
>> On 02/22/2013 06:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
>>> Martin:
>>>
Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
>>>
>>> It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That syntax is
>>> allowed still for other alia
On 02/22/2013 09:08 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 02/22/2013 06:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
> Martin:
>
>> Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
>
> It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That syntax is
> allowed still for other aliases.
It is a regression at best
2013/2/23 Ali Çehreli
> On 02/22/2013 06:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
> > Martin:
> >
> >> Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
> >
> > It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That syntax is
> > allowed still for other aliases.
>
> It is a regression at best because it
On 02/22/2013 06:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
> Martin:
>
>> Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
>
> It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That syntax is
> allowed still for other aliases.
It is a regression at best because it is nowhere to be found in the
changelo
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 15:31:43 UTC, Martin wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 15:07:29 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:58:02 UTC, Martin wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:55:19 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Martin:
Was something changed intentionally or is
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 15:07:29 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:58:02 UTC, Martin wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:55:19 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Martin:
Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
It was changed intentionally, but only for al
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:58:02 UTC, Martin wrote:
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:55:19 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Martin:
Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That
syntax is allowed still for other aliases.
By
Martin:
Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That
syntax is allowed still for other aliases.
Bye,
bearophile
On Friday, 22 February 2013 at 14:55:19 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Martin:
Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
It was changed intentionally, but only for alias this. That
syntax is allowed still for other aliases.
Bye,
bearophile
I see, thanks. What was the reason for not a
struct Test
{
int i;
alias this = i;
}
Worked fine in 2.061 but in 2.062 I get the errors
"Error: no identifier for declarator this" and "Error: alias
cannot have initializer".
Was something changed intentionally or is this a bug?
27 matches
Mail list logo
