More operators inside `is(...)` expressions

Stefan Koch uplink.coder at googlemail.com
Sun Aug 23 21:12:13 UTC 2020


On Sunday, 23 August 2020 at 21:08:30 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
> Why aren't more operators allowed inside `is(...)`-expressions?
>
> For instance
>
>     if (!is(CommonType!(typeof(min), typeof(max)) == void))
>
> could be written as
>
>     if (is(CommonType!(typeof(min), typeof(max)) != void))
>
> .

Because you don't want to make them even more complicated than 
they are already.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list