On 9/14/18 11:06 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
It also affects attrs brought through definitions though:
shared class foo {
int a; // automatically shared cuz of the above line of code
__not(shared) int b; // no longer shared
}
Aside from Jonathan's point, which I agree with, that the
On Friday, 14 September 2018 at 18:13:49 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
Makes the code unreadable.
It is the foo: that causes this, not the __not...
For @nogc, pure and so forth there were imho a better proposal
with a boolean value:
@gc(true), @gc(false), pure(true), pure(false) etc. It is also
On Friday, September 14, 2018 12:44:11 PM MDT Neia Neutuladh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 14 September 2018 at 18:13:49 UTC, Eugene Wissner
>
> wrote:
> > Makes the code unreadable. You have to count all attributes in
> > the file, then negate them. Nobody should write like this and
> >
On Friday, 14 September 2018 at 18:13:49 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
Makes the code unreadable. You have to count all attributes in
the file, then negate them. Nobody should write like this and
therefore it is good, that there isn't something like __not.
For @nogc, pure and so forth there were
On Friday, 14 September 2018 at 18:06:55 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Here's the simple idea: __not(anything) just turns off whatever
`anything` does in the compiler.
__not(final) void foo() {} // turns off the final flag (if it
is set)
__not(@nogc) void foo() {} // turns off the @nogc flag (if
On Friday, 14 September 2018 at 18:06:55 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Here's the simple idea: __not(anything) just turns off whatever
`anything` does in the compiler.
From your lips to G*d's ears.
Here's the simple idea: __not(anything) just turns off whatever
`anything` does in the compiler.
__not(final) void foo() {} // turns off the final flag (if it is
set)
__not(@nogc) void foo() {} // turns off the @nogc flag (if it is
set)
__not(const)(int) a; // not const
All it does is
