| Thread overview | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
March 09, 2009 Re: in vs. const | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Sergey Gromov Wrote:
> In D2, 'in' means 'const scope'. I've seen that in writing but can't remember where.
How can it be scope? If you have scope object, it gets *destructed* when leaving scope: when function exits. Ouch.
| ||||
March 09, 2009 Re: in vs. const | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kagamin | On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:07:05 +0300, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
> Sergey Gromov Wrote:
>
>> In D2, 'in' means 'const scope'. I've seen that in writing but can't
>> remember where.
>
> How can it be scope? If you have scope object, it gets *destructed* when leaving scope: when function exits. Ouch.
No. Scope has different meaning here. For example, delegates don't cause heap allocation when passed as scope parameters in D2.
| |||
March 09, 2009 Re: in vs. const | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Denis Koroskin | Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> No. Scope has different meaning here.
O RLY? That's good news.
| |||
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation
Permalink
Reply