On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 17:49:18 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 07:32:22 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> What do you mean "D does not provide a decltype"?
>>
>> typeof(cx) my_cx2 = cx;
>
> I'll blame this on my poor knowledge of C++, at this time typeof in C++ does not appear to compile, in the way I'm trying to use it. I thought using typeof in C++ would result in the same answer as the deduction auto provides.
>
> From that point of view, there is no need for decltype, because typeof already gives you the actual type in D (which will be the same as the type at declaration).

I think you've misunderstood him. You say in the article "D does not provide decltype", he is saying that this is misleading: D does but it's just called typeof instead.

On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 18:12:12 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> I think you've misunderstood him. You say in the article "D does not provide decltype", he is saying that this is misleading: D does but it's just called typeof instead.

No, I understood and had adjusted the article with "D does not provide a decltype as typeof already does the same thing;" I think this is ok since I'd already made use of typeof to assert expected types without explanation.

Anyway, I've got Part 6 out there and it looks like I'll have 2 more short parts which follow.