Weed wrote:
Christopher Wright пишет:
Weed wrote:
It not syntactic sugar. I suggest not to waste time at all performance
on run-time initialization of objects and check of side conditions on a
course of performance of the program.
Sorry, syntactic sugar and some minor optimizations.
These o
Christopher Wright пишет:
> Weed wrote:
>> It not syntactic sugar. I suggest not to waste time at all performance
>> on run-time initialization of objects and check of side conditions on a
>> course of performance of the program.
>
> Sorry, syntactic sugar and some minor optimizations.
These of
Weed wrote:
It not syntactic sugar. I suggest not to waste time at all performance
on run-time initialization of objects and check of side conditions on a
course of performance of the program.
Sorry, syntactic sugar and some minor optimizations.
Christopher Wright пишет:
> Weed wrote:
>> In fact, the D is not contain a mechanism for compile-time
>> initialization of objects. Maybe add?
>> void main()
>> {
>> S a = S(8); // ok
>> static S b = S(8); // error
>> }
>
> You want syntactic sugar for two things:
>
> // example 1
> void
Weed wrote:
In fact, the D is not contain a mechanism for compile-time
initialization of objects. Maybe add?
void main()
{
S a = S(8); // ok
static S b = S(8); // error
}
You want syntactic sugar for two things:
// example 1
void foo ()
{
static S s;
static bool s_initi
In fact, the D is not contain a mechanism for compile-time
initialization of objects. Maybe add?
For example, that would be very usable for any objects which have
mathematical primitives.
Example:
struct S
{
float[10] array;
this( float f )
{
array[0] = f;
}
}
void main
