On Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 08:37:01 UTC, Heromyth wrote:
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:59:53 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:17:34 UTC, Mathias Lang
wrote:
[...]
Good example, thanks for the information.
Maybe the compiler can do more works to make the
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:59:53 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:17:34 UTC, Mathias Lang
wrote:
2016-09-19 23:18 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
[...]
No you can't. The example is wrong, but Stefan is right.
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:17:34 UTC, Mathias Lang wrote:
2016-09-19 23:18 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
[...]
No you can't. The example is wrong, but Stefan is right.
Consider:
```
template Foo (T = string) { }
template
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:17:34 UTC, Mathias Lang wrote:
No you can't. The example is wrong, but Stefan is right.
Try it.
It got fixed a few versions ago.
Maybe it's broken again ?
I remember it working with 2.068
2016-09-19 23:18 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
> On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 21:14:38 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 21:09:37 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if I would call this a "destabalizing"
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 21:14:38 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 21:09:37 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
I don't know if I would call this a "destabalizing" language
change though. It should be backwards compatible with the
existing semantics. It adds an extra
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 21:09:37 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
I don't know if I would call this a "destabalizing" language
change though. It should be backwards compatible with the
existing semantics. It adds an extra step to type deduction,
but this would be the very last step of
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 20:47:00 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 20:21:30 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
Yes that's why the template cannot deduce the parameters. The
question is, when the parameters cannot be deduced, and they
are all optional, would it be
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 20:21:30 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
Yes that's why the template cannot deduce the parameters. The
question is, when the parameters cannot be deduced, and they
are all optional, would it be reasonable for the compiler to
infer that the user intended to use the
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 19:53:27 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 19:38:37 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
If you have a template where:
1) All parameters are optional
2) The parameters cannot be deduced
Would it be reasonable to instantiate the template with the
On Monday, 19 September 2016 at 19:38:37 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
If you have a template where:
1) All parameters are optional
2) The parameters cannot be deduced
Would it be reasonable to instantiate the template with the
default parameter values? For example:
template Foo(string str =
11 matches
Mail list logo
