I'd be more convinced if the following statements were false: 1. Writing an automated upgrade tool is difficult 2. The compiler would have no way of knowing what @nothrow means
Re: DIP64 - Regarding 'pure' and 'nothrow'
Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d-learn Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:46:26 -0700
- DIP64 - Regarding 'pure' and 'not... Aerolite via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 - Regarding 'pure'... ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 - Regarding 'pure'... Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 - Regarding 'pure'... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 - Regarding 'p... Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 - Regardin... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 - Rega... Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 -... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 -... ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 -... ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 -... Aerolite via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP... ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP64 -... Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re: DIP... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
- Re:... Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d-learn