On Saturday, 21 December 2024 at 23:16:52 UTC, sfp wrote:
On Saturday, 21 December 2024 at 07:02:07 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
I wrote a blog post on how to use a single mixin to forward
all operators to the D1 style overloads. You might find it
useful or inspiring.
https://www.schveigu
On Saturday, 21 December 2024 at 07:02:07 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
I wrote a blog post on how to use a single mixin to forward all
operators to the D1 style overloads. You might find it useful
or inspiring.
https://www.schveiguy.com/blog/2022/06/how-to-keep-using-d1-operator-overloads/
On Friday, 20 December 2024 at 18:40:17 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/19/24 10:49 AM, sfp wrote:
> Subject lines says it all
Although you clearly have a need for, virtual operators haven't
been common in my experience. I always felt they could cause
semantic issues.
...
But it uses his magi
On Saturday, 21 December 2024 at 07:02:07 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
I wrote a blog post on how to use a single mixin to forward all
operators to the D1 style overloads. You might find it useful
or inspiring.
https://www.schveiguy.com/blog/2022/06/how-to-keep-using-d1-operator-overloads/
On Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 18:49:28 UTC, sfp wrote:
Subject lines says it all, I think... The choice to make binary
operators implementable only via this `opBinary` template means
it's unclear how to get virtual operators on an interface.
I am very new to D, and my goal is to learn how
On 12/20/24 10:40 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> I always felt they could cause semantic issues.
I remembered one such case. What should happen if both Cat and Dog
defined the "+" operator? Should we expect 'cat + dog' behave the same
as 'dog + cat'?
Unfortunately, virtual functions are picked by t
On 12/19/24 10:49 AM, sfp wrote:
> Subject lines says it all
Although you clearly have a need for, virtual operators haven't been
common in my experience. I always felt they could cause semantic issues.
For example, the two subclasses of an interface may not have the binary
relation that the
On Friday, 20 December 2024 at 01:29:32 UTC, user1234 wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 18:49:28 UTC, sfp wrote:
Subject lines says it all, I think... The choice to make
binary operators implementable only via this `opBinary`
template means it's unclear how to get virtual operators on an
On Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 18:49:28 UTC, sfp wrote:
Subject lines says it all, I think... The choice to make binary
operators implementable only via this `opBinary` template means
it's unclear how to get virtual operators on an interface.
E.g., this toy example *does* compile:
```
interf
On Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 18:49:28 UTC, sfp wrote:
Subject lines says it all, I think... The choice to make binary
operators implementable only via this `opBinary` template means
it's unclear how to get virtual operators on an interface.
E.g., this toy example *does* compile:
```
interf
On Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 18:49:28 UTC, sfp wrote:
perhaps `.d` files need to be added on the command line,
or use `-i` to compile imports
always try -i in response to any linker error
11 matches
Mail list logo
