On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 12:39:13 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
But having them statically separated by name/type seems much
more likely to be safer in the long run with reliable results.
A question regarding templates. A template with different
parameters is completely incompatible correct? S
On 30-Jul-12 23:50, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 12:39:13 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
But having them statically separated by name/type seems much more
likely to be safer in the long run with reliable results.
A question regarding templates. A template with different parame
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> A question regarding templates. A template with different parameters is
> completely incompatible correct?
Correct. They have no reason, in general, too even generate the same code:
template Chameleon(T)
{
static if (is(T == struct))
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 20:19:51 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Not sure what you would like to accomplish here.
Than an example...
struct BitArray { //assume template...
ref BitArray opSliceAssign(T)(const T ba, int start, int end)
if (
//if T is type bitArray but only a different cha
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 21:03:39 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
Alright... Considered a major (Maybe even blocking).
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8475
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 20:48:26 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
Now if all that is correct, say I want to make two functions
that both use X, but are not compatible, but template
functions will allow it. So...
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do. Do you mean
you want a function
On 31-Jul-12 01:03, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 20:19:51 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Not sure what you would like to accomplish here.
Than an example...
You can go for simpler separation:
struct BitArray{
//() - is an empty template spec
ref BitArrayopSliceAssi
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 21:56:20 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
You can go for simpler separation:
struct BitArray{
//() - is an empty template spec
ref BitArrayopSliceAssign()(const BitArray ba, int start, int
end)
{
//two bit array can try balk mode etc.
I'll give it a try, it may very
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 22:23:46 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 21:56:20 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
in == scope const not sure what scope buys here but couldn't
hurt.
If it can avoid making a new copy, then it likely would help.
I'll need to test it. I actually am n
On 31-Jul-12 02:40, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 22:23:46 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 21:56:20 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
in == scope const not sure what scope buys here but couldn't hurt.
If it can avoid making a new copy, then it likely would he
On Monday, 30 July 2012 at 22:44:21 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Fixed :
void func(bool smth)(X!(smth).XT x){
By default XT is deduced as X!(current value of smth).XT
Doesn't really fix it...
a.func(b); //65 - doesn't match declaration.
a.func(ba); //66
//other template test
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
>> void func(T)(X!T x)
>> {}
>>
>> void main()
>> {
>> X!bool b;
>> X!int i;
>> func(b);
>> func(i);
>> }
>
>
> Hmmm i do think that seems right... but if it contains multiple parameters,
> then...?
>
> template X(x1, x2, x3)
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 05:27:58 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
No. Use a 3-params template or a tuple:
void func(A,B,C)(X!(A,B,C) x) {}
or
void func(Ts...)(X!(Ts) x) {}
I don't know how many arguments it will have (depends on how
many options I give it), and I honestly don't; It should be
13 matches
Mail list logo
