On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 11:03:24 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
Fun fact there: any child implementations do NOT need to
specify the attribute there; the compiler will copy it from the
interface for you.
I suppose these are the day-to-day minor details you can rely on
to avoid typing a lot of
On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 03:27:04 UTC, someone wrote:
I have an interface with function members *not* being declared
@safe (at first glance it seemed irrelevant to me just to mark
@safe a declaration and not an actual implementation).
Yeah, that'd be promising all child implementations are
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 21:01:00 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
From the interface perspective: are these signatures identical
or not ?
No, they are very different.
This helped me solve an issue that I carried since a few days ago:
I have an interface with function members *not* being
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:48:00 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:43:15 UTC, someone wrote:
So the lesson learned is that interfaces can also mandate
member function's parameter attributes then ... right ?
A subclass must accept anything the parent class can, but
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:43:15 UTC, someone wrote:
So the lesson learned is that interfaces can also mandate
member function's parameter attributes then ... right ?
A subclass must accept anything the parent class can, but it can
also make it stricter if you want.
class Base {
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 21:01:00 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
No, they are very different.
So the lesson learned is that interfaces can also mandate member
function's parameter attributes then ... right ?
But you also don't gain much from const here and that ref is
probably actively
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 20:42:06 UTC, someone wrote:
From the interface perspective: are these signatures identical
or not ?
No, they are very different.
But you also don't gain much from const here and that ref is
probably actively harmful so i wouldn't use them here.
