On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 13:49:09 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 28 November 2016 at 02:17:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/2016 05:29 PM, WM.H wrote:
>>>
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 03:15:55 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
I was under the impression that you could only access methods
as if they were fields using the @property attribute. After
carefully reading the documentation I see this is not the case
(UFCS does this). Still there are some
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 02:17:18 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 20:25:05 UTC, Mike Bierlee
wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one to
get its value.
It would be great
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 20:25:05 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one to
get its value.
It would be great if you could generate @properties instead. I
like the more
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one to
get its value.
It would be great if you could generate @properties instead. I
like the more natural way of accessing those instead of
getters/setters.
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 20:48:52 UTC, NVolcz wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:28:04 UTC, aberba wrote:
[...]
Love the article! Please keep writing tutorials like this :-D.
Feedback:
1.
The upload function is (kind of) vulnerable against path
traversal:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 16:30:55 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 12:37:58 UTC, Iakh wrote:
Is there possibility to remove affixes in generated accessor
names?
No, there is no way to manipulate the accessor names. What
affixes do you mean?
You can remove
On 12/10/16 10:56 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/25/16 9:10 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
I see this was pulled but no feedback as to whether it looked okay?
Doesn't seem to have made its way into the Dconf 2017 site. Seriously I
have no idea how my PR looks as I've not idea how to run ddoc.
All
On 11/25/16 9:10 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
I see this was pulled but no feedback as to whether it looked okay?
Doesn't seem to have made its way into the Dconf 2017 site. Seriously I
have no idea how my PR looks as I've not idea how to run ddoc.
All I know is that the 2017 site as it stands could
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 13:49:09 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Monday, 28 November 2016 at 02:17:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 11/24/2016 05:29 PM, WM.H wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
On Monday, 28 November 2016 at 02:17:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 11/24/2016 05:29 PM, WM.H wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged
11 matches
Mail list logo
