On Thursday, 6 September 2018 at 15:56:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
However, since attributes are applied to functions, and
__gshared is for variables, it really wouldn't make sense to
have @gshared, and by that same token, it wouldn't make sense
to have @ctlocal.
I don't see any reason
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 3:11:14 AM MDT Dechcaudron via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 11:39:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Conceptually, what Timon is talking about doing here is to add
> > an attribute to symbols declared within a static foreach where
>
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 11:39:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Conceptually, what Timon is talking about doing here is to add
an attribute to symbols declared within a static foreach where
that attribute indicates that the symbol is temporary (or at
least scoped to a particular
On 05.09.2018 12:29, Dechcaudron wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 19:50:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
The only blocker is finding a good syntax.
How does "static enum" sound?
It can't be anything that is legal code today (__local works for all
declarations, not just enums).
On 05.09.2018 14:41, Andre Pany wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12:05:59 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Indeed. scope enum would make much more sense.
scope enum sounds a lot better for me than static enum or even __local.
The __ words looks a little bit like compiler magic as the __
On 06/09/2018 12:52 AM, JN wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12:41:05 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12:05:59 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Indeed. scope enum would make much more sense.
scope enum sounds a lot better for me than static enum or even
__local.
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12:41:05 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12:05:59 UTC, rikki
cattermole wrote:
Indeed. scope enum would make much more sense.
scope enum sounds a lot better for me than static enum or even
__local. The __ words looks a little bit
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12:05:59 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Indeed. scope enum would make much more sense.
scope enum sounds a lot better for me than static enum or even
__local. The __ words looks a little bit like compiler magic as
the __ words are reserved for the compiler.
On 05/09/2018 11:39 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:19:04 AM MDT Dechcaudron via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 10:45:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Too many people already think that the point of static is to
just make something be done
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:19:04 AM MDT Dechcaudron via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 10:45:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Too many people already think that the point of static is to
> > just make something be done at compile time (which is actually
> >
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 10:45:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Too many people already think that the point of static is to
just make something be done at compile time (which is actually
a pretty terrible reason to use static) without adding that
sort of thing into the confusion.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 4:29:32 AM MDT Dechcaudron via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 19:50:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > The only blocker is finding a good syntax.
>
> How does "static enum" sound?
Like it would be really, really confusing. Too many people
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 19:50:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
The only blocker is finding a good syntax.
How does "static enum" sound?
On 02.09.2018 15:45, bauss wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 13:26:55 UTC, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev]
wrote:
It's intended, but with the possibility to add special syntax for
local declarations in the future left open, as per:
On Monday, 3 September 2018 at 18:03:18 UTC, Soma wrote:
Sorry to disrupt your threat, but as a lurking in this forum
using D for small projects, and after looking such snippet my
first impression is how D is getting polluted and becoming more
like Java and C++.
"final class", "public final
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 19:42:20 UTC, bauss wrote:
unmaintainable piece of code:
```
final class ClassName : SoapBinding, Interface
{
public:
final:
this()
{
super();
}
import __stdtraits = std.traits;
static foreach (member; __traits(derivedMembers, Interface))
{
n Monday, September 3, 2018 12:39:17 AM MDT Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Monday, 3 September 2018 at 04:43:30 UTC, bauss wrote:
> > On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 20:01:08 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 19:42:20 UTC, bauss wrote:
> >>> Woud
On Monday, 3 September 2018 at 06:39:17 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Monday, 3 September 2018 at 04:43:30 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 20:01:08 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 19:42:20 UTC, bauss wrote:
Woud be so much more maintainable if I could
On Monday, 3 September 2018 at 04:43:30 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 20:01:08 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 19:42:20 UTC, bauss wrote:
Woud be so much more maintainable if I could have each
statement into a variable that could be maintained
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 20:01:08 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 19:42:20 UTC, bauss wrote:
Woud be so much more maintainable if I could have each
statement into a variable that could be maintained properly.
You could extract the body of the static foreach
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 19:42:20 UTC, bauss wrote:
Woud be so much more maintainable if I could have each
statement into a variable that could be maintained properly.
You could extract the body of the static foreach into a
[template] function.
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 18:07:10 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 7:21:05 AM MDT bauss via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Is there a reason why you cannot create a separate scope
within a static foreach?
The below will not compile:
```
enum a = ["a" : "a", "b" : "b",
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 7:21:05 AM MDT bauss via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Is there a reason why you cannot create a separate scope within a
> static foreach?
>
> The below will not compile:
>
> ```
> enum a = ["a" : "a", "b" : "b", "c" : "c"];
>
> static foreach (k,v; a)
> {
> {
>
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 13:21:05 UTC, bauss wrote:
Is there a reason why you cannot create a separate scope within
a static foreach?
The below will not compile:
```
enum a = ["a" : "a", "b" : "b", "c" : "c"];
static foreach (k,v; a)
{
{
enum b = k;
enum c = v;
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 13:26:55 UTC, Petar Kirov
[ZombineDev] wrote:
It's intended, but with the possibility to add special syntax
for local declarations in the future left open, as per:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1010.md#local-declarations
Is there any
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 13:21:05 UTC, bauss wrote:
Is there a reason why you cannot create a separate scope within
a static foreach?
The below will not compile:
```
enum a = ["a" : "a", "b" : "b", "c" : "c"];
static foreach (k,v; a)
{
{
enum b = k;
enum c = v;
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 13:21:05 UTC, bauss wrote:
Is there a reason why you cannot create a separate scope within
a static foreach?
You can try it out here: https://run.dlang.io/is/7DgwCk
27 matches
Mail list logo
