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