On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 13:45:59 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 8/21/21 1:31 AM, Tejas wrote:
> I was more impressed that you found that hack in the first
place
I can't take credit. :) 'static foreach' had that difference
since its inception. The spec says "If a new scope is desired
for
On 8/21/21 1:31 AM, Tejas wrote:
> I was more impressed that you found that hack in the first place
I can't take credit. :) 'static foreach' had that difference since its
inception. The spec says "If a new scope is desired for each expansion,
use another set of braces:"
On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 06:58:47 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 8/20/21 11:19 PM, Tejas wrote:
[...]
Yes. 'static foreach' does not introduce scope, which can be
pretty useful. For example, one can define functions at module
scope.
The subtle differences between 'static foreach' and
On 8/20/21 11:19 PM, Tejas wrote:
On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 06:03:33 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 8/20/21 10:37 PM, Alexandru Ermicioi wrote:
[...]
Cool! Much better. :)
I could not do
[...]
Did you use that double curly bracket in `static foreach` so that you
don't get error for
On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 06:03:33 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 8/20/21 10:37 PM, Alexandru Ermicioi wrote:
[...]
Cool! Much better. :)
I could not do
[...]
Did you use that double curly bracket in `static foreach` so that
you don't get error for declaring stuff inside `static
On 8/20/21 10:37 PM, Alexandru Ermicioi wrote:
On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 05:34:59 UTC, Alexandru Ermicioi wrote:
...
Also there is no need for mixing string code here. You can get the field
using __traits(getMember, this, member).
Cool! Much better. :)
I could not do
static
On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 04:34:46 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
...
Consider __traits(identifier, member) instead. This one should
return member name as string, removing the need of memberName
function.
Also you could have an annotation @Equality.Include for example,
and make mixin scan
On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 05:34:59 UTC, Alexandru Ermicioi
wrote:
...
Also there is no need for mixing string code here. You can get
the field using __traits(getMember, this, member).
Sometimes I need comparison operators that should consider only some
members of a struct:
struct S {
int year; // Primary member
int month;// Secondary member
string[] values; // Irrelevant
}
I've been using the laziest tuple+tupleof solution in some of my structs:
