On Sunday, 17 April 2016 at 05:04:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I'm pretty sure that toImpl being public is an oversight. The
name itself implies that it should be private. I seriously
doubt any user code actually calls toImpl directly... shouldn't
it be just a matter of marking it private instead
On Sunday, 17 April 2016 at 11:00:33 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
What do you propose that we do instead? We need all of the
separate toImpl functions regardless of the name. Do you want
to try and embed them all inside of std.conv.to with the name
to? I expect that it's feasible, but it would
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 03:32:16AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 22:04:46 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
> > > Before I opened a PR, I wanted to get some se
On Friday, April 15, 2016 17:23:26 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Before I opened a PR, I wanted to get some second opinions.
>
> There is no reason IMO that the various overloads of toImpl
> should be public. Having the internal functionality of a parent
> function, in this case to, be e
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 22:04:46 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > Before I opened a PR, I wanted to get some second opinions.
> >
> > There is no reason IMO that the various overloads of toImpl should be
On Sunday, 17 April 2016 at 09:22:21 UTC, WebFreak001 wrote:
you need to use toImpl if you want to convert a number to/from
a specific base! I use that a lot when converting hexadecimal
values
No, the documentation just gives that impression. This works:
void main(string[] args) {
On Friday, 15 April 2016 at 17:23:26 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
Before I opened a PR, I wanted to get some second opinions.
There is no reason IMO that the various overloads of toImpl
should be public. Having the internal functionality of a parent
function, in this case to, be exposed like this
On Sunday, 17 April 2016 at 05:04:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +, Jack Stouffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
I'm pretty sure that toImpl being public is an oversight. The
name itself implies that it should be private. I seriously
doubt any user code act
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Before I opened a PR, I wanted to get some second opinions.
>
> There is no reason IMO that the various overloads of toImpl should be
> public. Having the internal functionality of a parent function, in
> this case
Before I opened a PR, I wanted to get some second opinions.
There is no reason IMO that the various overloads of toImpl
should be public. Having the internal functionality of a parent
function, in this case to, be exposed like this causes:
1. The docs to be cluttered with useless info. Anythi
10 matches
Mail list logo
