On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:43:29 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/20/2011 06:24 PM, Sean Eskapp wrote:
== Quote from David Nadlinger (s...@klickverbot.at)'s article
On 8/20/11 5:13 PM, Sean Eskapp wrote:
Does marking a member function as pure mean that it will return the
same
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:23:44 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2011 16:50:32 Sean Eskapp wrote:
Since the compiler can clearly tell when a function is not const, safe,
pure, or nothrow, why can't they just be assumed, unless proven
otherwise?
As
Usually this calls for a a build system, e.g. a build script or
something, that you use for specific projects which require GtkD or
something else.
For example (I'm assuming you're on win32), you could have this batch
file (build.bat):
http://codepad.org/vt0TskPy
And you could invoke it via
Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/21/2011 09:10 PM, Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Sean Eskapp:
Oh, I see, thanks! This isn't documented in the function documentation!
D purity implementation looks like a simple thing, but it's not
simple, it has several parts that in the last months have be added to
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:19:50 +0200, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
BTW: The whole weak pure/strong pure naming was just something I
came up with, to convince Walter to relax the purity rules. I'd rather
those names disappeared, they aren't very helpful.
The concepts are useful, but better
On 08/22/2011 10:19 PM, Don wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/21/2011 09:10 PM, Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Sean Eskapp:
Oh, I see, thanks! This isn't documented in the function
documentation!
D purity implementation looks like a simple thing, but it's not
simple, it has several parts that
On Monday, August 22, 2011 15:57 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/22/2011 10:19 PM, Don wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/21/2011 09:10 PM, Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Sean Eskapp:
Oh, I see, thanks! This isn't documented in the function
documentation!
D purity implementation looks like a
