On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 21:02:07 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 19:22:18 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
You could also use string mixins.
Which will be more efficient then recursion.
I try to avoid string mixins unless I can't help it.
Nevertheless, I made an effort to try to
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 19:22:18 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
You could also use string mixins.
Which will be more efficient then recursion.
I try to avoid string mixins unless I can't help it.
Nevertheless, I made an effort to try to get it to work and below
seems to be working. I still hav
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 19:25:22 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 05/31/2017 08:50 PM, jmh530 wrote:
Note: I left out the function foo, but think of foo is to Foo
as tuple is to Tuple.
You should have included foo, in my opinion. I'm having trouble
figuring out what your code does. `process` inst
On 05/31/2017 08:50 PM, jmh530 wrote:
Note: I left out the function foo, but think of foo is to Foo as tuple
is to Tuple.
You should have included foo, in my opinion. I'm having trouble figuring
out what your code does. `process` instantiates foo with the field
names. I'd need the definition
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 18:50:27 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I have a struct that I am using like a Tuple, but I want to be
able to opIndex in a different way than Tuple's opIndex. I want
to be able to opIndex whatever is underlying the Tuple.
[...]
You could also use string mixins.
Which will b
I have a struct that I am using like a Tuple, but I want to be
able to opIndex in a different way than Tuple's opIndex. I want
to be able to opIndex whatever is underlying the Tuple.
The code below works, but is kind of annoying because to extend
you have to keep adding static ifs. I want to c
