Yet another terrible compile time argument proposal

zjh fqbqrr at 163.com
Tue Jan 16 00:29:20 UTC 2024


On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 18:01:33 UTC, bomat wrote:

> The problem with C++ is that the second syntax also works but 
> does not do the same thing, which is just awful.

It's just a few `constructors`, it's easy to distinguish.
And D even disabled the `default constructor`, I really don't 
understand why, it's completely `self binding`.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list