On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 13:05:58 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
Use selective imports instead to introduce just the necessary
steps.
s/steps/symbols/
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 12:20:26 UTC, captaindet wrote:
this is really bad news for meta programming. i would have to
do this with ugly string mixins from now on, or is this
unintended behavior for string mixins as well?
No it's not, importing whole modules or packages into the scope
of
2016-06-30 14:20 GMT+02:00 captaindet via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
>
> does this mean mixin templates now have no way of adding imports to the
> scope they are mixed in?
>
That's exactly what it means. Likewise a base class cannot add an import
that will be visible by it's
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 11:40:38 UTC, Mathias Lang wrote:
2016-06-30 11:09 GMT+02:00 qznc via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
I don't see this properly documented [0].
It seems that imports in mixins are not visible even if
declared public? This means mixin imports are
Author here. I originally thought the issue was that an 'imported' scope
imports are not considered anymore.
this is exactly what i was/am afraid of ...[see below]
As Walter explained in this issue and in
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15966 this behaviour changed to
prevent
2016-06-30 11:09 GMT+02:00 qznc via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
>
> I don't see this properly documented [0].
>
> It seems that imports in mixins are not visible even if declared public?
> This means mixin imports are special?
>
> The issue also features a "protected imported".
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 08:08:13 UTC, Mathias Lang wrote:
Author here. I originally thought the issue was that an
'imported' scope
imports are not considered anymore.
As Walter explained in this issue and in
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15966 this behaviour
changed to
prevent
Author here. I originally thought the issue was that an 'imported' scope
imports are not considered anymore.
As Walter explained in this issue and in
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15966 this behaviour changed to
prevent hijacking and is intended.
So the only issue left with 15925 was
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 05:42:36 UTC, captaindet wrote:
the changelog to 2.071.1 lists 15925 as a fixed regression, and
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15925
lists it as "RESOLVED FIXED"
however, the issue as originally submitted still exists in
2.071.1.
so what is going on?
the changelog to 2.071.1 lists 15925 as a fixed regression, and
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15925
lists it as "RESOLVED FIXED"
however, the issue as originally submitted still exists in 2.071.1.
so what is going on?
for me as a non-core dev it is difficult to get the gist of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
