On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 23:46:51 UTC, forkit wrote:
On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 16:45:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
...
I think that syntax will be obviated when D will have named
arguments.
Ali
Huh? D doesn't have named arguments, already?
That's an important component for safe(r)
On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 16:45:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
...
I think that syntax will be obviated when D will have named
arguments.
Ali
Huh? D doesn't have named arguments, already?
That's an important component for safe(r) programming.
Do you know if there is a DIP for this, and i
On 2/18/22 12:16, Salih Dincer wrote:
>// x.writeln(y); // 2.087
>"D Compiler v".writeln(__VERSION__/1000.0);
> ```
> I'm using v2.087 but because of @disable this line doesn't work: ```//
> x.writeln(y); // 2.087```
>
> Why? Can you give an explanation for this?
This is not related to s
On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 16:45:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/18/22 07:01, kdevel wrote:
> Error: struct `B` has constructors, cannot use `{
initializers }`,
> use `B( initializers )` instead
>
> What is the rationale behind that? I mean: If the compiler
exactly
> sees what the pr
On 2/18/22 07:01, kdevel wrote:
> Error: struct `B` has constructors, cannot use `{ initializers }`,
> use `B( initializers )` instead
>
> What is the rationale behind that? I mean: If the compiler exactly
> sees what the program author intends to express why does it force the
> author to
On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 14:37:25 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/18/22 06:19, kdevel wrote:
> // auto b3 = B ("A", "B"); // Error: cannot implicitly
convert
> // expression `"A"` of type `string` to `A`
Yeah, D disallows some implicit conversions.
Adding a constructor to B will m
On 2/18/22 06:19, kdevel wrote:
> // auto b3 = B ("A", "B"); // Error: cannot implicitly convert
> // expression `"A"` of type `string` to `A`
Yeah, D disallows some implicit conversions.
Adding a constructor to B will make it work:
this(string as, string bs) {
this.a = A(as);
