On 3/11/12 8:23 AM, Manu wrote:
On 11 March 2012 14:56, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch <mailto:timon.g...@gmx.ch>> wrote:On 03/11/2012 12:50 PM, Manu wrote: Nobody has acknowledged or disputed the majority of my points :/ I agree with the majority of your points. Cool, well that's encouraging :) I can't really argue the implementation details, all I can do is assert criteria/requirements as I see them. So what was the perceived issue with the pull request you mentioned in an earlier post? I presume it only implemented the syntax, and not the ABI bits?
Yes. Just to clarify, Kenji's pull request only improves the syntax.
On 11 March 2012 15:08, David Nadlinger <s...@klickverbot.at <mailto:s...@klickverbot.at>> wrote: On Sunday, 11 March 2012 at 03:04:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: This analogy is tenuous for D because functions are defined to return one type, e.g. typeof(fun(args)) is defined. Once we get into disallowing that for certain functions, we're looking at major language changes for little benefit. TypeTuple!(ReturnType1, ReturnType2)? Right, well I'm glad I'm not the only one :) I figured this must have some important implication that I totally missed...
Of course it does. If you create a variable of type TypeTuple!(ReturnType1, ReturnType2), what's its layout?
Andrei
