On 29/06/18 15:35, aliak wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 June 2018 at 07:24:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 June 2018 at 07:13:14 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Thanks in advance for your participation.
For those of you using the NNTP or mailing list interfaces, this is
the thread to respond in. Thanks!
Alo!
This is great!
Just a clarification about the last paragraph phrasing
The last line: "We can further reduce this problem by calling the
function opPostMove." seemed to imply that an alternate name to
opPostMove would be mentioned, but am I correct in understanding that it
is just saying that "naming this second function as op* will keep code
breakage to a minimum" ?
This is a left over from a previous draft, where the operator was called
"opMove". It should be removed.
Also, what should happen if someone defines an opPostMove for a class.
Compile error or? Should something about that be mentioned?
I think nothing should happen. The function would be ignored, just like
it is today. I am open to hear other ideas, however.
I'm not sure whether it should be explicitly mentioned or not.
Shachar
