Christopher Wright wrote:
Charles Hixson wrote:
A) Yes, it works the way that you say. This damages it's utility.
B) I'm replying to a question as to how typedef could reasonably be
extended.
The point of a typedef is to provide additional type safety. This would
not exist if you could impl
Trass3r wrote:
Are there any guidelines for writing code compilable with both dmd 1.x
and 2.x?
This is to make a library usable by users of either, I presume?
I can give a few:
- Have a module to define types for such things as pointers/arrays that
will be const in D2.
- Use version(D_Vers
Rainer Deyke wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
You can create a COW array struct pretty easily. However, this will be
pretty slow in a lot of cases.
A built-in COW type does not need to be slow! The compiler can use
static analysis to eliminate unnecessary copies, and reference counting
can be
Are there any guidelines for writing code compilable with both dmd 1.x and
2.x?
