On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 19:19:09 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 18:09:45 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/6/17 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
So why wouldn't the compiler fail? Because it has no idea yet
what you mean by Nullable. It
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:07:41 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
Does dmd not compile all source code?
It doesn't. I like to build with a few different options to
explicitly test (e.g. build for Windows and Linux and -m32 and
-m64 to ensure those all exercised) and for templates,
On 12/6/17 2:19 PM, A Guy With a Question wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 18:09:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/6/17 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
So why wouldn't the compiler fail? Because it has no idea yet what
you mean by Nullable. It doesn't even know if
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 19:40:49 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 19:19:09 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
It seems D's fast compile times are achieved by skipping
semantic checking and even parsing when it doesn't feel it's
needed. I strongly
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 19:19:09 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
It seems D's fast compile times are achieved by skipping
semantic checking and even parsing when it doesn't feel it's
needed. I strongly disagree with this decision. This could
leave complex dormant time bombs that
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 18:09:45 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/6/17 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
So why wouldn't the compiler fail? Because it has no idea yet
what you mean by Nullable. It doesn't even know if Nullable
will be available or not. You could even import
On 12/6/17 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
So why wouldn't the compiler fail? Because it has no idea yet what you
mean by Nullable. It doesn't even know if Nullable will be available or
not. You could even import Nullable, but Nullable!T may be an error.
To give an example of why the
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:47:17 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
abstract class Test(T)
{
private:
T thing;
public:
this(T theThing)
{
thing = theThing;
thisdoesnotexist(); // expect compiler error right here
}
}
...but this compiles just fine.
On 12/6/17 12:04 PM, A Guy With a Question wrote:
I really do think, regardless of if this is considered a template
expansion, that dmd should be catching these obvious errors. When one
writes interfaces and abstract classes they are generally not ready to
implement the end class yet. And
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 17:04:06 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
abstract class Test(T)
Here you have a class template.
It does produce there error when I do this:
class Test2
: Test!int
You instantiated the template, so the compiler can now type check
the instantiated
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:49:51 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
module grrr.grr;
abstract class Test(T)
{
private:
T thing;
public:
this(T theThing)
{
thing = theThing;
thisdoesnotexist(); // expect compiler error right here
}
}
...but this
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:32:05 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
I have to be honest, I'm a little worried about all of this
code I just translated and how much of it is actually valid...I
hope I didn't waste my time.
Ok, so I verified this much. I would expect an error from the
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:47:17 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:32:05 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
I have to be honest, I'm a little worried about all of this
code I just translated and how much of it is actually
valid...I hope I didn't
I have to be honest, I'm a little worried about all of this code
I just translated and how much of it is actually valid...I hope I
didn't waste my time.
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:10:34 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:07:41 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
Noticed several typos that dmd seems to have not picked up
initially. Does dmd not compile all source code? I obviously
wouldn't expect it to recompile
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 16:07:41 UTC, A Guy With a
Question wrote:
Noticed several typos that dmd seems to have not picked up
initially. Does dmd not compile all source code? I obviously
wouldn't expect it to recompile something unnecessarily, but in
a few cases I've just seen it not
Noticed several typos that dmd seems to have not picked up
initially. Does dmd not compile all source code? I obviously
wouldn't expect it to recompile something unnecessarily, but in a
few cases I've just seen it not throw errors where it should have.
17 matches
Mail list logo
