https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10670
berni44 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10670
Seb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||greensunn...@gmail.com
---
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10670
--- Comment #7 from monarchdo...@gmail.com 2014-02-21 13:58:38 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I understand. I suggest to introduce a new function named like your fold and
slowly deprecate reduce.
Done.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10670
--- Comment #5 from monarchdo...@gmail.com 2013-07-22 22:59:37 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #2)
In the case of floats, well... I'd argue that using the seedless variety of
reduce on a float range is already a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10670
--- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-07-22 23:25:14 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I've tried in http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8755, but the
conclusion is that it is not possible without breaking code. And when
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10670
--- Comment #3 from monarchdo...@gmail.com 2013-07-22 03:21:52 PDT ---
I've done the dev. Here is my preliminary experience with it:
For starters, there *is* some convenience in using front as seed for calls
such as:
//
double[] a = [ 3,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10670
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10670
Peter Neubauer peterneubau...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|