I expected such an answer and I do understand the decisions behind it. Yet,
you gave me a really GOOD news! Having to write cast(ubyte) 1 was way too
much verbose for my liking, while the new ubyte(1) is reasonable enough.
Why not use `1u`?
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Philippe Sigaud
philippe.sig...@gmail.com wrote:
I expected such an answer and I do understand the decisions behind it. Yet,
you gave me a really GOOD news! Having to write cast(ubyte) 1 was way too
much verbose for my liking, while the new ubyte(1) is
So, I have this code (also on http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/3f767b17e83c)
This Vector(T) struct is taken from gfm.math.vector.
struct Vector(T) {
T x, y, z;
this(X : T, Y : T, Z : T)(X x_, Y y_, Z z_)
{
x = x_; y = y_; z = z_;
}
}
void main()
{
francesco cattoglio:
should this code compile? I understand that the literal 1 is
int therefore it can screw type deduction, but I wonder if
the compiler should be smart enough to deduce it correctly.
To keep both the compiler and programmers sane, D templates don't
perform implicit type
On Thursday, 24 July 2014 at 09:38:14 UTC, bearophile wrote:
francesco cattoglio:
should this code compile? I understand that the literal 1 is
int therefore it can screw type deduction, but I wonder if
the compiler should be smart enough to deduce it correctly.
To keep both the compiler and
