On 09/08/2014 07:00 PM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am Mon, 8 Sep 2014 18:34:10 +0300
schrieb ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:25:07 +0200
Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
int square(int x)=>x*x;
noted.
To clarify:
The above is not valid D 2.066 syntax.
Your apparent confusion supports a point I made in favour of it some
time ago though. My post was about function declaration syntax, not
squaring numbers. I assume Ola will still want to support x² though. :o)
There is x^^2, but the implementation uses pow(x,2)
Is this really still true?
and presumably yields a "real" result
No, both pow(x,2) and x^^2 yield an 'int' result.
