Permalink
ReplyThe obligatory permalink and latest draft.
The only difference is new subsections of § Maximal Munch Exceptions.
| Thread overview | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
September 24 Fourth Draft: Primary Type Syntax | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | ||||
September 26 Re: Fourth Draft: Primary Type Syntax | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Quirin Schroll | On Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 20:50:58 UTC, Quirin Schroll wrote: >The obligatory permalink and latest draft. The only difference is new subsections of § Maximal Munch Exceptions. The new sections look good. Currently the spec only mentions maximal munch for the lexer and not the parser. The typo | |||
September 26 Re: Fourth Draft: Primary Type Syntax | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Tim | On Thursday, 26 September 2024 at 18:05:51 UTC, Tim wrote: >On Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 20:50:58 UTC, Quirin Schroll wrote: >The obligatory permalink and latest draft. The only difference is new subsections of § Maximal Munch Exceptions. The new sections look good. Currently the spec only mentions maximal munch for the lexer and not the parser. The typo I just don’t understand how we live in 2024 and Visual Studio has no working spellcheck on Markdown. The proper spelling and some other wording issues are resolved now. | |||
6 days ago Re: Fourth Draft: Primary Type Syntax | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Quirin Schroll | On Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 20:50:58 UTC, Quirin Schroll wrote: >The obligatory permalink and latest draft. The only difference is new subsections of § Maximal Munch Exceptions. A question, probably out of ignorance: Why do function pointers / delegates need to care about their linkage type? I thought that a function pointer can freely point to any function that is otherwise of the correct type, regardless of it's linkage type. Is this not the case? | |||
6 days ago Re: Fourth Draft: Primary Type Syntax | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Dukc | On 05/10/2024 12:13 AM, Dukc wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 20:50:58 UTC, Quirin Schroll wrote:
>> The obligatory [permalink](https://github.com/Bolpat/DIPs/blob/fcb076e4be19abf634bcadbb7567c49ed80c084c/DIPs/DIP-2NNN-QFS.md) and [latest draft](https://github.com/Bolpat/DIPs/blob/PrimaryTypeSyntax/DIPs/DIP-2NNN-QFS.md).
>>
>> The only difference is new subsections of [§ Maximal Munch Exceptions](https://github.com/Bolpat/DIPs/blob/fcb076e4be19abf634bcadbb7567c49ed80c084c/DIPs/DIP-2NNN-QFS.md#maximal-munch-exceptions).
>
> A question, probably out of ignorance: Why do function pointers / delegates need to care about their linkage type?
>
> I thought that a function pointer can freely point to any function that is otherwise of the correct type, regardless of it's linkage type. Is this not the case?
No.
Linkage affects both mangling and the ABI (how it is called).
Parameters and return values could be in different locations if it was mixed up.
| |||
3 days ago Re: Fourth Draft: Primary Type Syntax | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole | On Friday, 4 October 2024 at 22:24:15 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote: >No. Linkage affects both mangling and the ABI (how it is called). Parameters and return values could be in different locations if it was mixed up. I see, thanks. In that case it's good that the DIP addresses it. In general I like a lot about this DIP is proposing but I should do a deeper dive. Maybe I will but not today. | |||
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation