On Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 17:11:23 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
For _TRIVIAL_cases this is not hard.
But we cannot only worry about trivial cases;
We have to consider _all_ cases.
Therefore we better not emit an error in a trivial case.
Which could lead users to assume that we are detecting
On Monday, 19 November 2018 at 21:39:22 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 19 November 2018 at 21:23:31 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez
Hermoso wrote:
What's the reasoning for allowing this?
The mistake is immediately obvious when you run the program, so
I just don't see it as a big deal. You lose a m
On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 at 15:46:35 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 at 13:27:28 UTC, welkam wrote:
Because the more you learn about D the less you want to use
classes.
classes rock. You just initialize it. You're supposed to
initialize *everything* anyway.
a fan
On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 at 19:11:46 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
But really, it's the act of using a pointer to read/write the
data it points at which causes the segfault. And in D, we
assume that this action is @safe because of the MMU protecting
the first page.
This is like me
On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 at 00:30:44 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez
Hermoso wrote:
Yeah, maybe this bit of C++ syntax isn't the best idea. What
about other alternatives?
You could try testing for null before dereferencing ;-)
If the following code in D, did what you'd reasonably expect it
to do,
