On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 18:12:12 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
I think you've misunderstood him. You say in the article "D
does not provide decltype", he is saying that this is
misleading: D does but it's just called typeof instead.
No, I understood and had adjusted the article with "D does not
provide a decltype as typeof already does the same thing;" I
think this is ok since I'd already made use of typeof to assert
expected types without explanation.
Anyway, I've got Part 6 out there and it looks like I'll have 2
more short parts which follow.