On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 03:05:57 UTC, Franz wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 03:03:16 UTC, Franz wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 02:21:42 UTC, rcor wrote:
I'm back for another round of is this a bug, or am I doing
something stupid?.
C and D implement interface I, and
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 06:27:59 UTC, Klaus wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 03:05:57 UTC, Franz wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 03:03:16 UTC, Franz wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 02:21:42 UTC, rcor wrote:
I'm back for another round of is this a bug, or am I
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 08:39:43 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
AFACIS there's nothing wrong with his use of casting. It's fine
here, because `I` is a base type of `C` and `D`. If it weren't
for the arrays, the cast wouldn't even be necessary. I think
it's a bug.
Correction:
AFAIK casting
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 08:49:04 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 08:39:43 UTC, Marc Schütz
wrote:
Whether the compiler should accept that or not is a different
question. I guess it should, because if it doesn't, there
wouldn't be an easy way to achieve a
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 06:27:59 UTC, Klaus wrote:
is just a horrible way of shortcuting the static typing. You
write this thinking that i has to be... and then you complain
latter because the cast does not work.
D is a strongly typed lang. in your example you use auto
because your
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 11:26:05 UTC, rcor wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 08:49:04 UTC, Marc Schütz
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 08:39:43 UTC, Marc Schütz
wrote:
Whether the compiler should accept that or not is a different
question. I guess it should, because
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 14:13:48 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 11:26:05 UTC, rcor wrote:
Is to! creating a new array of pointers while cast isn't? This
isn't a performance critical section and it's not a huge
array, so I ask mostly out of curiosity.
Yes,
I'm back for another round of is this a bug, or am I doing
something stupid?.
C and D implement interface I, and I have an array of each. I'd
like to combine these into one I[], but eventually I'd like to
cast an element back to its original type.
interface I {}
class C : I {}
class D : I
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 02:21:42 UTC, rcor wrote:
I'm back for another round of is this a bug, or am I doing
something stupid?.
C and D implement interface I, and I have an array of each. I'd
like to combine these into one I[], but eventually I'd like to
cast an element back to its
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 03:03:16 UTC, Franz wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 02:21:42 UTC, rcor wrote:
I'm back for another round of is this a bug, or am I doing
something stupid?.
C and D implement interface I, and I have an array of each.
I'd like to combine these into one
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 03:05:57 UTC, Franz wrote:
Your issue comme from auto.
i is a I[]
I expected i to be an I[], but shouldn't a casting an element of
an I[] to a C return either a C or null?
It is if I do this:
I[] i = [cast(I) new C, new D];
assert(cast(C) i[0]); // fine
seemingly even weirder:
I[] i0 = [new C, new C];
assert(cast(C) i0[0]); // fine
C[] c = [new C, new C];
I[] i1 = cast(I[]) c;
assert(cast(C) i1[0]); // fails
It works when I create an I[] from a C[] literal, but not when I
cast a previously declared C[] to an I[].
On 09/15/2014 07:21 PM, rcor wrote:
I'm back for another round of is this a bug, or am I doing something
stupid?.
C and D implement interface I, and I have an array of each. I'd like to
combine these into one I[], but eventually I'd like to cast an element
back to its original type.
interface
13 matches
Mail list logo
