It reads well, but would it still allow the resulting type to be an unboxed implementation?
-
-
-
I don't think it'd be worth any of this time and effort if it would require boxing. Then people just wouldn't use it and there'd be no point. But early prototypes might box. I didn't look at this code yet.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I prefer that notation a lot. +1 I understood it immediately when I looked at it. That didn't happen to me with the contract notation. Probably just the bias of what I know though.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
I am not sure which is better but contracts feel like too similar to interfaces, to exist. Ideally, we would like to not have overlapping features. Therefore, I think the interface approach is better.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
I like this better
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Oh I like that
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
It's too bad there wasn't a "type" type that didn't carry data but only type names. Sorta an abstract type. This would relieve giant maps of interfaces that hold data being passed as params of these contracts. But I suppose this does hit that 80/20...
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Reading that I could see how to implement a concurrent, type safe version of boost::graph.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.