On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 06:53:48 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Feedback is welcome.
One of the article says that only one AliasThis is allowed per
type, which is only half the truth. Multiple AliasThis are meant
to be allowed by the language but has not been implemented.
Am 13.07.2013 13:10, schrieb Jakob Ovrum:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 06:53:48 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Feedback is welcome.
One of the article says that only one AliasThis is allowed per type,
which is only half the truth. Multiple AliasThis are meant to be allowed
by the language but has
I started a small article series on D specific patterns idioms on my
blog. I'm going to add more over time and hope that there are at least
some in there which are not already known to everyone.
You can find them here: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?cat=17
Currently there are two:
1) D
On 7/11/13 11:53 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
I started a small article series on D specific patterns idioms on my
blog. I'm going to add more over time and hope that there are at least
some in there which are not already known to everyone.
You can find them here:
I think it's a nice blog and encourage you to do more!
On 7/12/2013 12:34 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
1) D implict conversion idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=90
Well you have a typo in the first title...
The same misspelling occurs repeatedly in the article, so it's not a typo.
D strives to prevent implict conversion between user defined types at
all costs.
I don't think this is true. Implicit conversions are very useful. What D
prevents are implicit conversions that can result in data loss, such as
integer truncation.
I did talk about implict conversions between
On 7/12/13 3:53 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
I started a small article series on D specific patterns idioms on my
blog. I'm going to add more over time and hope that there are at least
some in there which are not already known to everyone.
You can find them here:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 09:42:28 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
D strives to prevent implict conversion between user defined
types at
all costs.
I don't think this is true. Implicit conversions are very
useful. What D
prevents are implicit conversions that can result in data
loss, such as
Am 12.07.2013 17:12, schrieb Tobias Pankrath:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 09:42:28 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
D strives to prevent implict conversion between user defined types at
all costs.
I don't think this is true. Implicit conversions are very useful. What D
prevents are implicit
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 13:26:21 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
This sentence worries me a bit:
The code shown above has been tested with dmd 2.063.2
It seems like every minor release of D works different than
previous ones. Is that true? Isn't it enough to say D2? Can
something be done to
Am 12.07.2013 15:26, schrieb Ary Borenszweig:
On 7/12/13 3:53 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
I started a small article series on D specific patterns idioms on my
blog. I'm going to add more over time and hope that there are at least
some in there which are not already known to everyone.
You can
Am 12.07.2013 21:00, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 7/12/2013 2:42 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
D strives to prevent implicit conversion between user defined types at
all costs.
Ok - but I think it would be clearer if the statement added for user
defined types.
For me there is already a between
On 7/12/2013 12:22 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Am 12.07.2013 21:00, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 7/12/2013 2:42 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
D strives to prevent implicit conversion between user defined types at
all costs.
Ok - but I think it would be clearer if the statement added for user
defined
This statement kind of worries me:
It seems like every minor release of D works different than
previous ones.
Why would you release a version if it wasn't different from the
previous?
It would be nice if one could give the oldest known working
compiler, but there are still changes to old
14 matches
Mail list logo
