On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:10:31 spir wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> I started to be found of defining types which basically are arrays with
> free functions, instead of creating a struct or class with methods. Not
> only we still have pseudo-method syntax (for arrays only), but this allows
> cus
spir:
> But: is there a way to define functions corresponding to language operations
> (opEquals, opIndex, toString...) without creating a true type?
You may find some trick to do something like that, but it's not how D is
supposed to be used. In D operators belong in a struct/class/enum. "alia
Hello again,
I started to be found of defining types which basically are arrays with free
functions, instead of creating a struct or class with methods. Not only we
still have pseudo-method syntax (for arrays only), but this allows customizing
the type when needed.
But: is there a way to define
