On 2/10/15 12:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:16:21 via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, 9 February 2015 at 20:15:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
Why would it we even allow it? What benefit is there? It's
meaningless.
@disable this(); is for
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:16:21 via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Monday, 9 February 2015 at 20:15:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> > Why would it we even allow it? What benefit is there? It's
> > meaningless.
> > @disable this(); is for disabling the init property on structs.
> > Classes
> > th
On Monday, 9 February 2015 at 20:15:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, February 09, 2015 13:29:22 Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On 2/8/15 2:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Sunday, February 08, 2015 17:51:09 bearophile via
> Digitalmars-d
On Monday, February 09, 2015 15:25:14 Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Well, if I do this:
>
> class C {}
>
> I can do this:
>
> new C();
>
> Mechanisms to disable this are kind of awkward. I can define this() as
> private, but that doesn't help for intra-module calls.
>
> sta
I think this can be filed in Bugzilla as diagnostic enhancement:
class Foo {
@disable this();
this(int i) {}
}
void main() {}
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14163
Bye,
bearophile
On 2/9/15 3:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, February 09, 2015 13:29:22 Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On 2/8/15 2:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sunday, February 08, 2015 17:51:09 bearophile via Digitalmars-d-lea
On Monday, February 09, 2015 13:29:22 Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On 2/8/15 2:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 08, 2015 17:51:09 bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn
> > wrote:
> >> fra:
> >>
> >>> However making it a compiler
On 2/8/15 2:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sunday, February 08, 2015 17:51:09 bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
fra:
However making it a compiler error would be far, far better
I think this can be filed in Bugzilla as diagnostic enhancement:
class Foo {
On Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 19:57:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, February 08, 2015 17:51:09 bearophile via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
fra:
> However making it a compiler error would be far, far better
I think this can be filed in Bugzilla as diagnostic
enhancement:
class Foo
On Sunday, February 08, 2015 17:51:09 bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> fra:
>
> > However making it a compiler error would be far, far better
>
> I think this can be filed in Bugzilla as diagnostic enhancement:
>
>
> class Foo {
> @disable this();
> this(int i) {}
> }
> void ma
fra:
However making it a compiler error would be far, far better
I think this can be filed in Bugzilla as diagnostic enhancement:
class Foo {
@disable this();
this(int i) {}
}
void main() {}
Bye,
bearophile
On Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 16:28:21 UTC, fra wrote:
On Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 16:22:36 UTC, fra wrote:
Missclick... Anywya:
class Something
{
@disable this();
this(int i) {}
}
produces an undefined reference error.
I guess it has to do with classes implicitly inheriting from
Objec
On Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 16:22:36 UTC, fra wrote:
Missclick... Anywya:
class Something
{
@disable this();
this(int i) {}
}
produces an undefined reference error.
I guess it has to do with classes implicitly inheriting from
Object, and Object defining a this(), and @disable telling th
13 matches
Mail list logo
