• Lionello Lunesu (10/10) Nov 12 2004 Hi..
• Stewart Gordon (7/15) Nov 12 2004 VersionSpecification is a syntactical form in its own right, so any
• Lionello Lunesu (1/1) Nov 12 2004 I guess one could use bit[] for a set?

"Lionello Lunesu" <lionello.lunesu crystalinter.remove.com> writes:

Hi..

Just a thought:

wouldn't "version |= featureA; version |= featureB;" make more sense than 
"version=featureA; version=featureB;" ?
(basically, version should behave as a set, but D doesn't have a basic set 
type, or does it?).

That's all.

Lio.

-- Get the CACert root certificate (and a personal one) at 
http://cacert.org/ 

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
 Hi..
 
 Just a thought:
 
 wouldn't "version |= featureA; version |= featureB;" make more sense than 
 "version=featureA; version=featureB;" ?
 (basically, version should behave as a set, but D doesn't have a basic set 
 type, or does it?).

VersionSpecification is a syntactical form in its own right, so any 
syntactical changes wouldn't depend on the invention of a set type.

But if D did have a set type, I can imagine that one would want version 
assignments to follow the same form.  Only trouble: what would happen to 
the version = Integer form?

Stewart.

"Lionello Lunesu" <lionello.lunesu crystalinter.remove.com> writes:

I guess one could use bit[] for a set?