On 6/11/15 5:06 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 20:54:46 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It makes sense, and is very extendable, and uniform. You can deal with
this much easier when imlplementing some sort of wrapping than one
that has to do something different dependin
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 20:54:46 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
It makes sense, and is very extendable, and uniform. You can
deal with this much easier when imlplementing some sort of
wrapping than one that has to do something different depending
on how many args are passed inside the []
On 6/11/15 4:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 13:09:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/11/15 8:54 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 11-Jun-2015 15:22, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/11/15 4:24 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Already works. Just define opSlice for
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 13:09:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 6/11/15 8:54 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 11-Jun-2015 15:22, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/11/15 4:24 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Already works. Just define opSlice for container that
returns a range
and then:
fo
On 6/11/15 8:54 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 11-Jun-2015 15:22, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/11/15 4:24 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Already works. Just define opSlice for container that returns a range
and then:
foreach(elem; container) {}
is lowered to:
foreach(elem; container[]) {}
On 11-Jun-2015 15:22, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/11/15 4:24 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Already works. Just define opSlice for container that returns a range
and then:
foreach(elem; container) {}
is lowered to:
foreach(elem; container[]) {}
I think you want to do opIndex which takes
On 6/11/15 4:24 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Already works. Just define opSlice for container that returns a range
and then:
foreach(elem; container) {}
is lowered to:
foreach(elem; container[]) {}
I think you want to do opIndex which takes no parameters. opSlice is no
longer supposed to b
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 08:24:25 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 11-Jun-2015 11:18, w0rp wrote:
A thought just came to me. When I'm implementing foreach for a
container, I'm left with the choice of using a range for a
container or
opApply. I've found often that I prefer the ranges, as it's
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 08:24:25 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 11-Jun-2015 11:18, w0rp wrote:
A thought just came to me. When I'm implementing foreach for a
container, I'm left with the choice of using a range for a
container or
opApply. I've found often that I prefer the ranges, as it's
On 11-Jun-2015 11:18, w0rp wrote:
A thought just came to me. When I'm implementing foreach for a
container, I'm left with the choice of using a range for a container or
opApply. I've found often that I prefer the ranges, as it's easy for me
to write a range that satisfies @nogc @safe pure nothrow
A thought just came to me. When I'm implementing foreach for a
container, I'm left with the choice of using a range for a
container or opApply. I've found often that I prefer the ranges,
as it's easy for me to write a range that satisfies @nogc @safe
pure nothrow, etc. This is because the range
11 matches
Mail list logo
