typeof(func!0) != typeof(func!0())
snarwin at gmail.com
Mon Aug 22 15:20:46 UTC 2022
On Monday, 22 August 2022 at 14:43:24 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
> But the question is still opened: why is `typeof(U().func!0)`
> not the same as `typeof(U().func!0())`?
Probably because if it were the same, it would be completely
impossible to introspect on the type of `U.func!0` directly. The
closest you could get would be to examine `typeof(&U.func!0)`;
i.e., the type of the function pointer rather than the function
I'm not totally convinced that the current behavior is the
correct decision here, but there is a real tradeoff.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn