On Monday, 17 June 2013 at 01:05:26 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
Yes, it is.
OK cool. Thanks, I never thought of doing it this way before!
Should solve a lot of problems, though see my last note on the
parameter default which is still outstanding. (Now the whole
parsing stringof is a massive hack in the first place, I'd prefer
to have a __traits or something to get the names and defaults
directly, but still gotta work with what we have.)
Seems like you managed to immediately hit a DMD bug – "dmd b.d
a.d" works using DMD 2.063.1, but reversing the module order
produces a stream of arbitrary error messages.
Yeah, same with the 2.063 I have now that I try reversing it. How
bizarre.
