On 16 July 2010 20:11, Mafi wrote:
> Am 16.07.2010 11:12, schrieb Heywood Floyd:
>
> Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
>>
>> I do agree that, if possible, the language should match how most people
>>> think. But in this case, it is impossible, because of templates. How
>>> would the following exampl
On 16 July 2010 11:12, Heywood Floyd wrote:
> Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
> (...)
>
> When we introduce templates, this should still work:
>
> struct MyArray(T){
> array[3] T a;
> }
>
> // Let's try
> T == array[11] int
>
> array[3] T a;
> array[3] (array[11] int) a;
> array[3] array[11] a;
> ar
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> I'm not positive, but I think the second const applies to the second
> function, I think you meant:
> const Bar& GetBar() const { return mBar; }
Uh, yes, of course. Pff, I feel bad for making such an embarrasing mistake.
> And ye
Not sure if I'm double posting now. Sorry if I am, but I didn't see my own post
appear this time.
Anyway, thanks for your replies, that was very helpful. I had one more question
about inout. If I understand correctly it cannot be used to get rid of the
double
GetBar function in the following C++
Thanks for all replies, that was very helpful. I have one more question about
inout. If I understand correctly, it is always coupled to the use of a parameter
and cannot be used to get rid of the double GetBar in the following C++ example:
class Foo
{
public:
const Bar& GetBar() { return bar; }
Hey all,
I'm having some trouble understanding the whole const and immutable of D2,
especially since it seems documentation is not consistent (Or I'm missing some
things). I write quite a lot of C++ code btw, so I'm familiar with that.
---
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/htomodule.html says: D
