Semantics of ^^, Version 3 (Final?)
Rainer Deyke
rainerd at eldwood.com
Wed Dec 9 02:18:22 PST 2009
Don wrote:
> Rainer Deyke wrote:
>> Not quite. Under the proposal, -1^^-1 works (i.e. produces the correct
>> result) at compile time but fails at runtime.
>
> It won't pass CTFE.
pure int f() { return -1; }
void g(int)(int);
g!(f() ^^ f())(0); // Works.
g!(0)(f() ^^ f()); // Runtime error?
'f() ^^ f()' can be a compile-time constant, but isn't guaranteed to be
evaluated at compile time.
--
Rainer Deyke - rainerd at eldwood.com
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list