Why use dynamic Variant if there is static tuples? As for me, syntax
bind(["id":1], ["name":"myName"]) is better.
2010/11/16 Kagamin :
> Alexey Khmara Wrote:
>
>> There is some ideas:
>> - use associative array approach like st.bind(["
"add + commit" is not a bad design at all. It is just design choice,
and it also about "patch control system", that allows more logical
commit history and more precise control over VCS. It allows to code
all things you want and place into commit only part of your changes.
You even can stage part of
Yes. I need to sleep more... Anyway syntax is better - it's compact
enough and it shows
pairs "key-value".
2010/11/16 Kagamin :
> Alexey Khmara Wrote:
>
>> Why use dynamic Variant if there is static tuples? As for me, syntax
>> bind(["id":1], ["n
>From user side it's not hard to make it simple. Differences could be minimized,
plugins added etc. I'll try to add MySQL, and if it's possible to implement
common interface, I'll do it. But I'm not sure that it will be easy.
2010/11/16 Diego Cano Lagneaux :
> [ ... ]
>>
>> In terms of support in
to add anything with automatic SQL generation -
I don't seen any that is easy and fast, but may be it would be good to support
some compile-time generation of datasets with felds of known type.
D wold be good in this field. I'll will think on it.
2010/11/16 Russel Winder :
> Alexey,
>
&g
2010/11/16 Jesse Phillips :
> While it might be better to update existing projects, here are some answers.
>
> Alexey Khmara Wrote:
>
>> I want there to call appropriate overloaded function for each item of
>> args tuple, but I was not able to do this without mixin -
thing like "args[i] =
getValue!T[i](i);"
Also if I try to assign to arg, and not args[i], changes are not
propagated to variables given as function arguments, even if I have
foreach(ref... syntax. Is it a bug or I just don't understand
something?
--
WBR,
Alexey Khmara
