On 5/27/18 5:23 AM, IntegratedDimensions wrote:
C[] c;
@property C[] get() { return c; }
get ~= something;
errors out, yet
auto q = get;
q ~= something;
is fine.
It's "fine", but not doing what you may expect.
This appends an element to q, but does nothing to c.
While an array is not
On Sunday, 27 May 2018 at 23:21:05 UTC, IntegratedDimensions
wrote:
I came across a few posts mentioning this after the fact. It's
been this way since at least 2012 so... It's now may so not
sure how much longer we'll have to wait. That pull seems to
have stalled. So close but so far away ;/
On Sunday, 27 May 2018 at 09:28:36 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Sunday, 27 May 2018 at 09:23:09 UTC, IntegratedDimensions
wrote:
C[] c;
@property C[] get() { return c; }
get ~= something;
errors out, yet
auto q = get;
q ~= something;
is fine.
Why is D thinking that ~= is being applied to
On Sunday, 27 May 2018 at 09:23:09 UTC, IntegratedDimensions
wrote:
C[] c;
@property C[] get() { return c; }
get ~= something;
errors out, yet
auto q = get;
q ~= something;
is fine.
Why is D thinking that ~= is being applied to get, the
function, rather than what it returns?
Also
When
On Monday, June 12, 2017 20:40:52 Balagopal Komarath via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Is there a way to avoid the following combinatorial explosion of
> overloaded functions when overloading for lvalue and rvalue
> arguments? The following may be a bad example because int is
> cheap to copy. So
On Sun, 01 May 2011 09:30:34 -0400, CrypticMetaphor
crypticmetapho...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I've been away from D for a while, but now I'm back and I'm stuck
with an compile time error.
I've got a Matrix33 class and a Vector3 class, but something is wrong
with the way I return my Vector3
On 1/05/11 2:30 PM, CrypticMetaphor wrote:
Hi, I've been away from D for a while, but now I'm back and I'm stuck
with an compile time error.
I've got a Matrix33 class and a Vector3 class, but something is wrong
with the way I return my Vector3 in my matrix class:
If I do this I get an error:
On 01.05.2011 17:30, CrypticMetaphor wrote:
Hi, I've been away from D for a while, but now I'm back and I'm stuck
with an compile time error.
I've got a Matrix33 class and a Vector3 class, but something is wrong
with the way I return my Vector3 in my matrix class:
If I do this I get an
On 5/1/2011 3:53 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Ehm.. Well, first things first: you shouldn't use classes for
lightweight plain data things like vectors. There are structs for
that. In general, structs are value-like objects living on the stack
while classes are reference-like objects living on
On 1/05/11 2:53 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Ehm.. Well, first things first: you shouldn't use classes for
lightweight plain data things like vectors. There are structs for
that. In general, structs are value-like objects living on the stack
while classes are reference-like objects living on the
On 01.05.2011 19:31, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 1/05/11 2:53 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Ehm.. Well, first things first: you shouldn't use classes for
lightweight plain data things like vectors. There are structs for
that. In general, structs are value-like objects living on the stack
while
11 matches
Mail list logo
