On 02/26/2012 12:18 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:07:14 Timon Gehr wrote:
This is useful:
struct S{
@disable enum init = 0;
}
I thought that the way that you were supposed to do that was
@disable this();
- Jonathan M Davis
struct S{@disable this();}
On Sunday, February 26, 2012 13:15:51 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 26-02-2012 12:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, February 26, 2012 12:48:06 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/26/2012 12:18 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:07:14 Timon Gehr wrote:
This is useful:
On 25-02-2012 05:05, bearophile wrote:
This program comes from a reduction of a bug I've found:
struct Foo {
void init() {}
}
void main() {
Foo*[] foos;
//(*foos[0]).init(); // OK
foos[0].init(); // Error: function expected before (), not null of type
Foo*
}
What do you
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:23:21PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 25-02-2012 05:05, bearophile wrote:
This program comes from a reduction of a bug I've found:
struct Foo {
void init() {}
}
void main() {
Foo*[] foos;
//(*foos[0]).init(); // OK
foos[0].init();
On 02/25/2012 04:52 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:23:21PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 25-02-2012 05:05, bearophile wrote:
This program comes from a reduction of a bug I've found:
struct Foo {
void init() {}
}
void main() {
Foo*[] foos;
On 25.02.2012 8:05, bearophile wrote:
This program comes from a reduction of a bug I've found:
struct Foo {
void init() {}
}
void main() {
Foo*[] foos;
//(*foos[0]).init(); // OK
foos[0].init(); // Error: function expected before (), not null of type
Foo*
}
What do you
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:07:14 Timon Gehr wrote:
This is useful:
struct S{
@disable enum init = 0;
}
I thought that the way that you were supposed to do that was
@disable this();
- Jonathan M Davis
On 26-02-2012 00:18, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:07:14 Timon Gehr wrote:
This is useful:
struct S{
@disable enum init = 0;
}
I thought that the way that you were supposed to do that was
@disable this();
- Jonathan M Davis
Yeah, I'm not sure what
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:23:47AM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 26-02-2012 00:18, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:07:14 Timon Gehr wrote:
This is useful:
struct S{
@disable enum init = 0;
}
I thought that the way that you were supposed to do that
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:54:44 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:23:47AM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 26-02-2012 00:18, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:07:14 Timon Gehr wrote:
This is useful:
struct S{
@disable enum init
On 26-02-2012 02:54, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:54:44 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:23:47AM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 26-02-2012 00:18, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:07:14 Timon Gehr wrote:
This is useful:
This program comes from a reduction of a bug I've found:
struct Foo {
void init() {}
}
void main() {
Foo*[] foos;
//(*foos[0]).init(); // OK
foos[0].init(); // Error: function expected before (), not null of type Foo*
}
What do you think about the idea of not allowing methods
12 matches
Mail list logo
