shorter alternative of constructor with parameter
SomeDude via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat Jun 21 14:47:00 PDT 2014
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 21:25:33 UTC, Kapps wrote:
>
> Personally I'd definitely welcome this syntax. It's an
> extremely common thing to do, prone to typos / bugs, is a
> simple syntax, and is something I'm surprised more languages
> don't have.
I've never seen a single instance of a bug like this in 15 years
of Java and C++ programming. One has to be really sloppy in order
to insert bugs in such simple code.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list