On Sunday, 4 March 2012 at 20:25:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
By the way, I wouldn't rely on much that ideone says about D at
this point.
It's still on version 2.042 of dmd, whereas the latest release
is 2.058.
- Jonathan M Davis
Then ask for the latest version, and as David pointed
On Monday, March 05, 2012 11:32:39 Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Sunday, 4 March 2012 at 20:25:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
By the way, I wouldn't rely on much that ideone says about D at
this point.
It's still on version 2.042 of dmd, whereas the latest release
is 2.058.
- Jonathan M
Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL
shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the
same content of i?
On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote:
Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL
shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the
same content of i?
This is intended behaviour. You have two distinct definitions of i. If
you want to set i to 2 in the derived
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote:
Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL
shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the
same content of i?
This is intended behaviour. You have two
Am 04.03.2012 19:22, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote:
Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL
shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the
same content of i?
This is
On Sunday, March 04, 2012 19:36:20 David wrote:
Am 04.03.2012 19:22, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote:
Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL
shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the
On 03/04/2012 07:22 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Makes one wonder, though... from an OO perspective, does it make sense
to have overridable non-function members? What semantics would (should)
that have?
Yes, it does make sense. const/immutable/(final) fields can be
covariant. OTOH, it is not
Am 04.03.2012 21:24, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
On Sunday, March 04, 2012 19:36:20 David wrote:
Am 04.03.2012 19:22, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote:
Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL