On Saturday, September 03, 2011 17:03:33 Paul D. Anderson wrote: > kenji hara Wrote: > > 2011/8/31 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>: > > > Unfortunately however, the proposal seems to have gone nowhere thus > > > far. Until it does, pretty much every object is just going to use > > > toString without parameters, and the problems with BigInt's > > > toString remain. However, if the proposal actually gets > > > implemented, then the issue should then be able to be sorted out. > > > Objects would have writeTo and toString would presumably be > > > deprecated. > > > > I have posted pull request to fix BigInt's formatting with writef(ln) > > <- formattedWrite(). > > https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/230 > > > > Kenji Hara > > There are problems with opCmp as well. The "<" and ">" operators won't > compile if either argument is a const BigInt, so a lot of otherwise > unnecessary copying is required. > > You can see this in these functions I've had to add the following functions > to my BigDecimal package: > > private BigInt abs(const BigInt num) { > BigInt big = copy(num); > return big < BigInt(0) ? -big : big; > } > > private BigInt copy(const BigInt num) { > BigInt big = cast(BigInt)num; > return big; > } > > private int sgn(const BigInt num) { > BigInt zero = BigInt(0); > BigInt big = copy(num); > if (big < zero) return -1; > if (big < zero) return 1; > return 0; > } > > (I'd be happy to learn there's a better way to implement these.)
It's all part of http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3659 The compiler is too strict on the signature of various struct functions (e.g. opEquals, opCmp, and toString), and const and immutable aren't dealt with very well. - Jonathan M Davis
