Matthew Wilson wrote:

[...]
> So, have you been using the function call operators, as per your request, from beta 48? Work fine? :-)
AFAICT, it works fine.  I would suggest to implement operator()() in terms
of at_unchecked, DRY, but it's your code :)

"Neal Becker" <ndbecker2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:evo22q$1o58$1@digitalmars.com...
> Matthew Wilson wrote:
>
> [...]
> > So, have you been using the function call operators, as per your
request,
> > from beta 48? Work fine? :-)
> AFAICT, it works fine.  I would suggest to implement operator()() in terms
> of at_unchecked, DRY, but it's your code :)

Ah yes. Doh!

The perils of using temporary macros in one's IDE. ;-)

I'll fix it up.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:evon5o$1k8r$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> "Neal Becker" <ndbecker2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:evo22q$1o58$1@digitalmars.com...
> > Matthew Wilson wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > So, have you been using the function call operators, as per your
> request,
> > > from beta 48? Work fine? :-)
> > AFAICT, it works fine.  I would suggest to implement operator()() in
terms
> > of at_unchecked, DRY, but it's your code :)
>
> Ah yes. Doh!
>
> The perils of using temporary macros in one's IDE. ;-)
>
> I'll fix it up.

Done. (And I've enhanced the unit-tests from their previous parlous coverage
<g>)

Thanks for the keen-eye and sharp brain!