What is the case against a struct post-blit default constructor?
Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Mon Oct 15 17:46:04 PDT 2012
On Monday, October 15, 2012 11:56:33 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Yeah, It's extra work. But essentially, isn't this what you want? The
> thing about disabling invariant checks on some specific function in some
> specific case is that someone else has a valid case for requiring it.
I've considered it, and I may end up doing that for SysTime, but it's also
kind of ridiculous to have to add assertions to _every_ function like that
just to avoid having it called on one function.
> The only sucky part about the above is, _invariant is compiled in even in
> release mode (though it should inline to a noop).
version(assert) now fixes that problem.
More information about the Digitalmars-d