On Sat, 2015-09-26 at 10:46 +, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> […]
I guess the summary is: it's a breaking change, so do it. No we can't
do that it's a breaking change.
Seems lame given all the other breaking changes that have been. Sad
given that reduce is probably the single
On Monday, 28 September 2015 at 11:04:56 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-09-26 at 10:46 +, John Colvin via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
I guess the summary is: it's a breaking change, so do it. No we
can't do that it's a breaking change.
Seems lame given all the other breaking
On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 11:37 +, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
>
[…]
> My thoughts exactly, even though it was partly me that pointed
> out the breaking changes...
Curses, if no-one had pointed out it was breaking maybe no-one would
have noticed, and just made the change?
> I
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 12:54 +, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
>
[…]
> I vastly prefer the UFCS version, but unfortunately reduce has
> its arguments the wrong way around for that if you use the
> version that takes a seed...
In which case the reduce parameter list is wrong,
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 06:28:22 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 12:54 +, John Colvin via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
I vastly prefer the UFCS version, but unfortunately reduce has
its arguments the wrong way around for that if you use the
version that takes
