Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Monday, September 24, 2018 9:33:19 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 16:22, Jonathan M Davis via > > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 3:20:28 PM MDT Manu via > > Digitalmars-d-announce> > > wrote: > > > copy-ctor is good,

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 16:22, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 3:20:28 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce > wrote: > > copy-ctor is good, @implicit is also good... we want both. Even though > > copy-ctor is not strictly dependent on

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Monday, September 24, 2018 7:59:36 PM MDT Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 23:22:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > @implicit on copy constructors is outright bad. It would just > > be a source of bugs. Every time that someone forgets to

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 23:22:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: @implicit on copy constructors is outright bad. It would just be a source of bugs. Every time that someone forgets to use it (which plenty of programmers will forget, just like they forget to use @safe, pure, nothrow, etc.),

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Monday, September 24, 2018 3:20:28 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > copy-ctor is good, @implicit is also good... we want both. Even though > copy-ctor is not strictly dependent on @implicit, allowing it will > satisfy that there's not a breaking change, it it will also >

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Monday, September 24, 2018 10:44:01 AM MDT Meta via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 01:08:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > @implicit is just there because of the fear of breaking a > > theoretical piece of code that's going to be extremely rare if > > it

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 12:40, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 17:34:58 UTC, Manu wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 00:55, Gary Willoughby via > > Digitalmars-d-announce > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 17:34:58 UTC, Manu wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 00:55, Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: > It appears that @implicit has been removed from the > implementation [1], but not

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 00:55, Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas Wilson > wrote: > > It appears that @implicit has been removed from the > > implementation [1], but not yet from the DIP. > > > >

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 01:08:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: @implicit is just there because of the fear of breaking a theoretical piece of code that's going to be extremely rare if it exists at all and in most cases would continue to work just fine even if it did exist. - Jonathan

Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: It appears that @implicit has been removed from the implementation [1], but not yet from the DIP. https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/cdd8100 Good, It's not needed.

Re: Webassembly TodoMVC

On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 18:36:11 UTC, Joakim wrote: Vladimir mentioned that there's a Musl port to wasm, have you tried it? https://github.com/jfbastien/musl Druntime and ldc support Musl. Thanks for the link, I will have a look at it!