On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 19:29:26 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
Is it possible for the `result` variable in the following code
to be returned as an immutable type if it's created by adding
two immutable types?
Why do you even want that? Such plain data structure is
implicitly convertible to
On 06/14/2017 03:47 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
The fundamental difference is that const and immutable share a
characteristic that mutable doesn't -- you can't mutate the data.
(... through the reference at hand.)
const and mutable share this: The data may be mutated from elsewhere.
On 6/13/17 7:51 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 06/14/2017 12:45 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, the fact that immutable implicitly casts to const(inout) is a
special property enabled by the knowledge that immutable data can
NEVER change, so it's OK to assume it's (at least) const for all
On 06/14/2017 12:45 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, the fact that immutable implicitly casts to const(inout) is a
special property enabled by the knowledge that immutable data can NEVER
change, so it's OK to assume it's (at least) const for all references.
The same cannot be true of const
On 6/13/17 5:58 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 06/13/2017 10:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
const(inout) actually *is* a thing :)
It's a type constructor that can be implicitly cast from immutable.
This has advantages in some cases.
See (horribly written) table at the bottom if the inout function
On 06/13/2017 10:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
const(inout) actually *is* a thing :)
It's a type constructor that can be implicitly cast from immutable. This
has advantages in some cases.
See (horribly written) table at the bottom if the inout function section
here:
On 6/13/17 3:58 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 06/13/2017 09:29 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
Is it possible for the `result` variable in the following code to be
returned as an immutable type if it's created by adding two immutable
types?
Qualify the return type as `inout`:
inout(Rational)
On 06/13/2017 09:29 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
Is it possible for the `result` variable in the following code to be
returned as an immutable type if it's created by adding two immutable
types?
Qualify the return type as `inout`:
inout(Rational) opBinary(/*...*/)(/*...*/) inout {/*...*/}
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 11:36:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Nope, const works just fine. A clue is in your return type --
it's not inout!
This should work:
public Rational opBinary(string op)(Rational rhs) const
If Rational had any indirections, then inout would be required,
and
On 6/12/17 3:36 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 07:38:44PM +, Gary Willoughby via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
In the following code is there any way to make the `opBinary` method
generic to be able to accept immutable as well as a standard type? The
On 6/12/17 3:51 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I don't know how H. S. Teoh managed to answer 'before' I posted but
thanks guys! :)
D programmers are *that* good.
Seriously though, for NNTP connections, timestamp is taken from the
submitter's PC.
-Steve
On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 20:10:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Therefore, nowadays I always recommend writing parenthesis with
type modifiers, so that the intent it unambiguous, i.e., always
write `inout(Rational)` rather than `inout Rational`, unless
you intend for `inout` to apply to the
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 01:08:13PM -0700, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On 06/12/2017 01:03 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> > On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 19:36:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> >> public inout Rational opBinary(string op)(inout Rational rhs)
>
> > Quick question
On 06/12/2017 01:03 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 19:36:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> public inout Rational opBinary(string op)(inout Rational rhs)
> Quick question about the signature, if I change it to (note the parens):
>
>public inout(Rational)
On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 19:36:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 07:38:44PM +, Gary Willoughby via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
In the following code is there any way to make the `opBinary`
method generic to be able to accept immutable as well as a
standard type? The code
On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 19:51:37 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I don't know how H. S. Teoh managed to answer 'before' I posted
but thanks guys! :)
might be a bug, happened here
http://forum.dlang.org/post/ohbr5l$2mng$1...@digitalmars.com also.
I don't know how H. S. Teoh managed to answer 'before' I posted
but thanks guys! :)
Gary Willoughby wrote:
In the following code is there any way to make the `opBinary` method
generic to be able to accept immutable as well as a standard type? The
code currently passes the unit test but I wonder if I could get rid of
the duplication to overload the operator? I'm failing
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 07:38:44PM +, Gary Willoughby via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> In the following code is there any way to make the `opBinary` method
> generic to be able to accept immutable as well as a standard type? The
> code currently passes the unit test but I wonder if I could
In the following code is there any way to make the `opBinary`
method generic to be able to accept immutable as well as a
standard type? The code currently passes the unit test but I
wonder if I could get rid of the duplication to overload the
operator? I'm failing badly.
import std.stdio;
20 matches
Mail list logo
