On Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 22:04:27 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 08:45:49 UTC, Tove wrote:
I disagree, you can always fallback to using user defined
types... but it _allows_ for native types also, i.e. more
flexible.
You are missing the point: In your
On 11/15/2012 12:22 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-11-14 22:13, Walter Bright wrote:
I am having a REALLY hard time making my point here.
struct MyString
{
string s;
}
Just because it is not a builtin type does not change anything.
Sure you _can_ but it would be quite stupid. With
On Friday, 16 November 2012 at 10:41:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The whole point of my example was no, you do not necessarily
know the meaning of a user-defined type that is used as an
attribute.
Agree. Imagine we have 3 generic libs/modules...
Optimized CTFE Polygon Primitive Lib, Math, Gfx
Le 14/11/2012 22:13, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 11/14/2012 2:53 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
If std.mytypes.mystring is a variable of the type string then the
fully
qualified name is lost if it's used as an attribute. Something like this:
I am having a REALLY hard time making my point here.
On 11/14/2012 2:18 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Can you provide one concrete case where it makes sense NOT to restrict UDAs to
types
One where its use is entirely inside the scope of a module, i.e. local use of
it. There seems to be an assumption that UDAs are global, but I don't see a
On Friday, 16 November 2012 at 13:12:34 UTC, Tove wrote:
On Friday, 16 November 2012 at 10:41:44 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
The whole point of my example was no, you do not necessarily
know the meaning of a user-defined type that is used as an
attribute.
Agree. Imagine we have 3 generic
On 2012-11-16 11:41, Walter Bright wrote:
Sure you _can_ but it would be quite stupid. With user defined types
there is at
least some context. With a plain string (or any built in type) it can
come from
any where and mean anything.
The difference is, with a user defined type you know the
