On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 21:28:22 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
The only difference is that `func` became a member function.
And now what? You can just as easily "forget" what's in your
struct/class as in your whole module.
ok. Now, what are your options then (assuming you want an
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 21:35:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2018 5:44 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
When one encounters a new idea that's unfamiliar sometimes
it's easy to think that because it's unfamiliar it must be
unsound. That can be a mistake. It might be better to suspend
On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 01:23:44 +, nobodycares wrote:
> I think there are more than enough real-world examples, of where issues
> around 'type safety', or lack of, have caused a sufficient number of
> bugs, to warrant a discussion about ways to further improve type safety.
You do realize we can
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 21:35:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2018 5:44 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
When one encounters a new idea that's unfamiliar sometimes
it's easy to think that because it's unfamiliar it must be
unsound. That can be a mistake. It might be better to suspend
On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 01:23:44 UTC, nobodycares wrote:
I assume the moderator(s) doesn't like me anymore, as my posts
are no longer being published. Great way to run a discussion
forum by the way.
It not just you, my post had disappear only to reappear on later
dates. I can vouch
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 at 15:40:03 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
There are many potential features that wouldn't cause problems
in isolation. Should we add all of them? Obviously not; the
result would be a horribly complex language that takes too much
time to learn and is impossible to
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 at 15:40:03 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
There are many potential features that wouldn't cause problems
in isolation. Should we add all of them? Obviously not; the
result would be a horribly complex language that takes too much
time to learn and is impossible to
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 at 15:40:03 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 11:36:39 +, FooledDonor wrote:
Can we argue about the problems arising from the potential
introduction of this feature?
There are many potential features that wouldn't cause problems
in isolation.
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 03:58:16 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 11/02/2018 03:18 AM, ShadoLight wrote:
> Maybe you are thinking of the "Prefer non-member non-friend
functions to
> member functions" rule from Herb Sutter's "Effective C++"
books?
Scott Meyers.
Ali
Thanks for the
On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 11:36:39 +, FooledDonor wrote:
> Can we argue about the problems arising from the potential introduction
> of this feature?
There are many potential features that wouldn't cause problems in
isolation. Should we add all of them? Obviously not; the result would be a
On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 21:04:13 UTC, kinke wrote:
Glad to announce the first beta for LDC 1.13:
* Based on D 2.083.0.
* The Windows packages are now fully self-sufficient, i.e., a
Visual Studio/C++ Build Tools installation isn't required
anymore.
* Substantial debug info improvements
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:04:13PM +, kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> Glad to announce the first beta for LDC 1.13:
>
> * Based on D 2.083.0.
> * The Windows packages are now fully self-sufficient, i.e., a Visual
> Studio/C++ Build Tools installation isn't required anymore.
> *
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 16:21:36 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 11:24:06 +, FooledDonor wrote:
And if the validity of a person's reasoning is a function of
his way of expressing them, well ... do not pose to software
engineers at least
If you want other people to
13 matches
Mail list logo
