On Friday, 12 August 2016 at 23:14:23 UTC, Engine Machine wrote:
On Friday, 12 August 2016 at 15:35:50 UTC, sldkf wrote:
On Friday, 12 August 2016 at 02:09:21 UTC, Engine Machine
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 21:25:20 UTC, sldkf wrote:
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 20:27:01 UTC,
On Friday, 12 August 2016 at 02:09:21 UTC, Engine Machine wrote:
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 21:25:20 UTC, sldkf wrote:
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 20:27:01 UTC, Engine Machine
issue solved using a "template this parameter":
°°
template Cow()
{
void
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 20:27:01 UTC, Engine Machine wrote:
This requires F2 to know the future. It also forces it to use a
specific bar. I want inheritance like logic.
You are goind to hit a wall. Template programming is not OOP.
I'm not even sure that reflection would work in order to
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 17:56:47 UTC, Engine Machine wrote:
template F1(T)
{
void bar() { writeln("Bar0"); }
}
template F2(T)
{
mixin F1!T;
void foo() { bar(); }
}
template F3(T)
{
mixin F2!T;
void bar() { writeln("Bar1"); } // <- This bar should be
used for F2's foo!
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 17:56:59 UTC, Charles Hixson wrote:
Does anyone know the correct approach?
I do:
°°
immutable class Foo
{
this() {}
}
void main()
{
auto foo = new immutable(Foo);
}
°°
But take care because you
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 18:11:30 UTC, Engine Machine wrote:
Is there any way to get D to understand I want do not want a
template parameter to be part of the type comparison?
No. Use a standard run-time parameter. Your problem can be solved
by defining a constructor.
