On Sunday, 30 June 2013 at 08:18:39 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:38:38 +0200
schrieb "monarch_dodra" :
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:01:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Shouldn't doing anything value-related on
> an empty struct be invalid anyway?
Why ?
The fact that the s
Am Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:38:38 +0200
schrieb "monarch_dodra" :
> On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:01:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > Shouldn't doing anything value-related on
> > an empty struct be invalid anyway?
>
> Why ?
>
> The fact that the struct has no members is an implementation
> detail
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:01:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Shouldn't doing anything value-related on
an empty struct be invalid anyway?
Why ?
The fact that the struct has no members is an implementation
detail which should have no impact on the user of the struct.
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 12:58:51 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:54:32 +0200
schrieb "Maxim Fomin" :
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:01:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:16:33 +0200
> schrieb Andrej Mitrovic :
>
>> On 6/28/13, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>> >
On 6/29/13, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Shouldn't doing anything value-related on
> an empty struct be invalid anyway?
Maybe, maybe not. I could imagine it would cause problems if we simply
disallowed it, e.g. if you want to copy attributes from one
declaration to another.
Am Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:54:32 +0200
schrieb "Maxim Fomin" :
> On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:01:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > Am Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:16:33 +0200
> > schrieb Andrej Mitrovic :
> >
> >> On 6/28/13, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> >> > A naive question: Why isn't struct S {} enough? This s
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:01:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:16:33 +0200
schrieb Andrej Mitrovic :
On 6/28/13, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> A naive question: Why isn't struct S {} enough? This should
> be a
> struct with size 0 so why do we need to disable the
> construct
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:16:33 +0200
schrieb Andrej Mitrovic :
> On 6/28/13, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > A naive question: Why isn't struct S {} enough? This should be a
> > struct with size 0 so why do we need to disable the constructor and
> > postblit explicitly?
>
> Because the user should never
On 6/28/13, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> A naive question: Why isn't struct S {} enough? This should be a struct
> with size 0 so why do we need to disable the constructor and postblit
> explicitly?
Because the user should never be able to use such a struct by value,
in other words a user might mistake
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:40:31 +0200
schrieb Andrej Mitrovic :
> struct S
> {
> @disable("S is an opaque C type and must only be used as a
> pointer") this();
>
> @disable("S is an opaque C type and must only be used as a
> pointer") this(this);
> }
A naive question: Why isn't struct S {}
On 6/28/13, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Unfortunately this tends to spawn unreadable error messages:
It looks like there's also a blocking bug:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10497
So I'll have to use my new technique instead anyway. :p
On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 02:17:06 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 01:40:44 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Note that if we implement Issue 8728[1], we could even create
a better
error message via:
-
struct S
{
@disable("S is an opaque C type and must only be used as a
On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 01:40:44 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Note that if we implement Issue 8728[1], we could even create a
better
error message via:
-
struct S
{
@disable("S is an opaque C type and must only be used as a
pointer")
this();
@disable("S is an opaque C type
13 matches
Mail list logo
