Hi..

Just a thought:

wouldn't "version |= featureA; version |= featureB;" make more sense than
"version=featureA; version=featureB;" ?
(basically, version should behave as a set, but D doesn't have a basic set
type, or does it?).

That's all.

Lio.

-- Get the CACert root certificate (and a personal one) at http://cacert.org/

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> Hi..
> 
> Just a thought:
> 
> wouldn't "version |= featureA; version |= featureB;" make more sense than "version=featureA; version=featureB;" ?
> (basically, version should behave as a set, but D doesn't have a basic set type, or does it?).

VersionSpecification is a syntactical form in its own right, so any syntactical changes wouldn't depend on the invention of a set type.

But if D did have a set type, I can imagine that one would want version assignments to follow the same form.  Only trouble: what would happen to the version = Integer form?

Stewart.

I guess one could use bit[] for a set?