On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 10:35:58 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 09:35:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:14:13 +0000
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 00:34:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> And like with them, it's impossible to use ref for this,
> because you can't use
> ref with variadic template arguments.
Wait what?
void foo(T...)(ref T args)
{
args[0] = 42;
}
void main()
{
int x;
foo(x);
assert(x == 42);
}
Well, that's new then. You didn't used to be able to do that.
I clearly missed
that change. Thanks for the correction. I'd still use pointers
in this case
though, since it's clearer and consistent with existing code
like getopt.
- Jonathan M Davis
And strongly @system.
This alone is absolutely blocking objection against pointer-based
decomposition in my opinion.
Liked simple design with returning struct most.
