http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.019.zip

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.003.zip

Beautiful! Just when I think D can't get better, it does! Thanks for all the hard work.

May I ask why you put the road there before traits? I know there's a std.traits, but perhaps a different keyword entirely or just a single underscore might be more appropriate...? It looks a bit like a compiler-specific extension to me...

Walter Bright Wrote:

> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.019.zip
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.003.zip

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.019.zip
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.003.zip

In the spec for the new ForeachRangeStatement, it says:

"If Foreach is foreach, then the variable is set to LwrExpression, then incremented at the end of each iteration."

What does "incremented" mean, exactly? If have a class or struct that defines opAddAssign, would it call foo.opAddAssign(1) (as ++foo does)? Similarly, would the foreach_reverse form call foo.opSubAssign(1)?

-- 
Kirk McDonald
http://kirkmcdonald.blogspot.com
Pyd: Connecting D and Python
http://pyd.dsource.org

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.019.zip
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.003.zip

Well, this __traits stuff is certainly going to give me something to think about. One note: the lexical page doesn't seem to list it as a keyword.

How many times have I rewritten Pyd? Three? Well, no matter. This should make things interesting again.

-- 
Kirk McDonald
http://kirkmcdonald.blogspot.com
Pyd: Connecting D and Python
http://pyd.dsource.org

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.019.zip
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.003.zip

new toys! neat! thanks :)

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:f80p2n$2k7a$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.019.zip
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.003.zip

You're really making it hard for me not to switch to D2.0.  __traits looks absolutely amazing.  Just remove const-ness and I'll switch ;)

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f817c6$a1o$1@digitalmars.com...

>
> You're really making it hard for me not to switch to D2.0.  __traits looks absolutely amazing.  Just remove const-ness and I'll switch ;)

A question -- many of the descriptions of the __traits functions say that "an array is returned."  But some of the samples look like tuples are being used:

alias typeof(__traits(getVirtualFunctions, D, "foo")) b;
foreach (t; b)
    writefln(typeid(t));

If this really did return an array, the typeof() it would be a single item, not a list, and you wouldn't be able to foreach over it.  So does this return a tuple instead?

Robert Fraser wrote:
> May I ask why you put the road there before traits? I know there's a std.traits, but perhaps a different keyword entirely or just a single underscore might be more appropriate...? It looks a bit like a compiler-specific extension to me...

I was thinking they should be buried inside of templates.

Kirk McDonald wrote:
> In the spec for the new ForeachRangeStatement, it says:
> 
> "If Foreach is foreach, then the variable is set to LwrExpression, then incremented at the end of each iteration."
> 
> What does "incremented" mean, exactly? If have a class or struct that defines opAddAssign, would it call foo.opAddAssign(1) (as ++foo does)? Similarly, would the foreach_reverse form call foo.opSubAssign(1)?

Right now, it doesn't work with structs/classes, but when it does, it'll be as you wrote.

Kirk McDonald wrote:
> Well, this __traits stuff is certainly going to give me something to think about. One note: the lexical page doesn't seem to list it as a keyword.
> 
> How many times have I rewritten Pyd? Three? Well, no matter. This should make things interesting again.
> 

Hey, you asked for it <g>.