On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:01:29 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, Adam Sansier wrote:
Um, no, I revived it so that people searching for answers
wouldn't be led astray by idiots who pretend to know
everything.
My word is not COM specification of course, ther
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 at 05:41:55 UTC, AntonSotov wrote:
2 Seb
Thank you!
is (T: typeof (null)) - very comfortable
An example of Seb's warning:
What happens if you have:
string s = null;
MyFunc(s);
I'm guessing it doesn't do what you want. But it isn't clear what
you want - null is a value
I just updated to 2.074.0. I see there's still a README.TXT which
tells me
(on windows) to download dmc, "which contains the linker and
necessary libraries".
Is this out of date? I see a "link.exe" in the dmd package.
Granted it's a bit older, but do I care?
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 08:32:56 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
What's the status of atomicity of file-copying and -moving
(renaming) using std.file on different platforms?
For renaming that's a good question, but for copying, no-one
should make atomicity guarantees. It's inherently non-atomic, and
i
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
In D you just use '.' throughout and it Just > Works(tm).
Unless the property you're accessing is also a pointer property,
like
sizeof. Then you have to be careful. The below prints 4 then 8
(on 32-bit):
un
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 05:05:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:37:37AM +, Andrew Godfrey via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Unless the property you're accessing is also a pointer
property, like
sizeof. Then you have to be careful.
True. T
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 14:06:04 UTC, seany wrote:
How do I read unicode chars that has code points \u1FFF and
higher from a file?
file.getcw() reads only part of the char, and D identifies this
character as an array of three or four characters.
Importing std.uni does not change the
I really don't think that it's an issue in general, but if you
do want to
guarantee that nothing affects the capacity of your array, then
you're going
to need to either wrap all access to it
I agree with everything Jonathan said in both threads EXCEPT that
this is not an issue.
The syntax