literals

[so]

Just wow...

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:23:00 +0400, Fawzi Mohamed <fawzi at gmx.ch> wrote:

>
> On 28-mar-10, at 16:22, so wrote:
>
>>> the one to use when things are ambiguos
>>
>> What ambiguity you are talking about?
>> It is generic code, everything known.
>
> right f(1) with overloaded function f is not ambiguous.
>
>>> really the compiler cannot parse your function, and I can't either, to  
>>> me what you meant is the code I wrote.
>>
>> So you are saying a compiler is unable to parse this :
>>
>> T inv(T)(T m) {
>> 	return 1.0 / m;
>> }
>> [...]
>> I am not sure if i should answer you with the attitude of yours but  
>> lets have it.
>
>
> you know with someone that uses a clearly fake email, does not bother to  
> actually check if the compiler doesn't by chance already do what he  
> would like to have, and the reason he bashes D, says "I don't want  
> implicit casts, because otherwise you know what I would like to have  
> happens, and besides cast is a nasty thing, so implicit cast must be bad  
> or something, and the name doesn't sound good... so you have to abide my  
> rule of no implicit cast"
>
> well that looks like a troll, so as superdan says
> "u don't reason with'em trollz."
>
> still sometime you have to answer them just so that outsiders realizes  
> that those things are just FUD, and because sometime there is really  
> someone that wants to meaningfully contribute to the discussions, but  
> starts out in a bad way...
>
> D numerical system is not perfect, and there are possible improvements,  
> for example I think that it could learn a couple of things from fortran  
> 90 numerical system (which mostly could be done with templates), but it  
> is definitely very usable.
>
> goodbye
>
> Fawzi


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/