On 2/6/13 12:33 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Am 06.02.2013 08:38, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
Probably it'll need a fair amount of tweaking. Anyhow it's in
destroyable form.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Thanks,
Andrei
What I don't get is, why is it better to have a function
"addressOf(value)" that does exactly the same as &value? Expect that it
is more text to type? Why is addressOf(value) more explicit then &value?
A good part of that is the recent debate on what &func should do (take
the address of the function vs. the address of its result). With the
unsafe meaning out of the way, only the safe one is eligible.
Andrei
