Is there anything preventing us from adding constraints on the
auto function return value? I mean, such language extension seems
to be quite useful.
For example, it would be no longer necessary to provide method
bodies for functions with auto return values.
In many cases this would
On Thursday, 17 May 2012 at 11:49:18 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
Is there anything preventing us from adding constraints on the
auto function return value? I mean, such language extension
seems to be quite useful.
For example, it would be no longer necessary to provide method
bodies for
`
To: digitalmars.D digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.3.1-1-ARCH; KDE/4.8.2; x86_64; ; )
X-Authenticated: #68274723
X-Flags: 0001
X-KMail-CryptoMessageFormat: 15
X-KMail-EncryptActionEnabled: false
X-KMail-Fcc: 15
X-KMail-SignatureActionEnabled: false
X-KMail-Transport:
On Thursday, 17 May 2012 at 21:09:10 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It would still be necessary, because the compiler needs to know
what the
actual return type is. Knowing that the type implements
popFront, front, and
empty isn't enough. It needs to know the actual, physical
layout of the type
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 13:49:16 Roman D. Boiko wrote:
Is there anything preventing us from adding constraints on the
auto function return value? I mean, such language extension seems
to be quite useful.
For example, it would be no longer necessary to provide method
bodies for functions
