Ah yes I never noticed that "in" was in the binary op table. In
my defense, searching for "in" usually yields too many results to
be useful. Thanks to everyone for your help!
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:35:54PM +, Vlad Levenfeld via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:14:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> >struct S
> >{
> > int opIn_r(int key)
> > {
> > return key*2;
> > }
> >}
> >
> >void main()
> >{
> > assert((42 in S.in
Dicebot:
Yep, I think it is D1 legacy approach. opBinary should be more
appropriate.
I hope the usage of the old operator overloading functions will
generate deprecation messages soon.
Bye,
bearophile
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:35:55 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:14:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
struct S
{
int opIn_r(int key)
{
return key*2;
}
}
void main()
{
assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
}
Thanks! I wonder, why the
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 15:36:23 UTC, Kozzi11 wrote:
Thanks! I wonder, why the _r and lack of documentation?
Maybe something from old days? But in current http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html#Binary";
target="_blank">doc there is a opBinary:
Yep, I think it is D1 legacy approach. op
On 07/02/2014 07:35 AM, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:14:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
struct S
{
int opIn_r(int key)
{
return key*2;
}
}
void main()
{
assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
}
Thanks! I wonder, why the _r
I think it is the old syntax, meaning
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:14:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
struct S
{
int opIn_r(int key)
{
return key*2;
}
}
void main()
{
assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
}
Thanks! I wonder, why the _r and lack of documentation?
struct S
{
int opIn_r(int key)
{
return key*2;
}
}
void main()
{
assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
}
Is this possible?
The documentation for std.container lists "in" as an operator in
the container API but only associative arrays actually seem to
support it.
