On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 22:49:16 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
God forbid anyone implement such nonsense into D !
That would be the last thing we need
Slight nitpick, but what I suggested for our hypothetical
situation was only to apply for auto, once variable was assigned
to auto and go
On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 19:49:35 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 10/21/2015 12:37 PM, Sigg wrote:
> cause at least few more "fun" side effects.
One of those side effects would be function calls binding
silently to another overload:
void foo(bool){/* ... */}
void foo(int) {/* ... */}
a
On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 22:49:16 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Am Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:49:35 -0700
schrieb Ali Çehreli :
On 10/21/2015 12:37 PM, Sigg wrote:
> cause at least few more "fun" side effects.
One of those side effects would be function calls binding
silently to another overload
Am Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:49:35 -0700
schrieb Ali Çehreli :
> On 10/21/2015 12:37 PM, Sigg wrote:
>
> > cause at least few more "fun" side effects.
>
> One of those side effects would be function calls binding silently to
> another overload:
>
> void foo(bool){/* ... */}
> void foo(int) {/* ...
On 10/21/2015 12:37 PM, Sigg wrote:
> cause at least few more "fun" side effects.
One of those side effects would be function calls binding silently to
another overload:
void foo(bool){/* ... */}
void foo(int) {/* ... */}
auto a = 0; // If the type were deduced by the value,
foo(a);
On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 19:07:24 UTC, anonymous wrote:
The problem is of course that int and ulong have no common
super type, at least not in the primitive integer types. int
supports negative values, ulong supports values greater than
long.max.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was un
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 07:53 PM, Sigg wrote:
> void func() {
> int a = -10;
> ulong b = 0;
> ulong c = a + b;
> writefln("%s", c);
> }
>
> out: 18446744073709551574
>
> But shouldn't declaring c as auto force compiler to go extra step
>
