Re: Bug? taskPool.map() with bufSize and writeln() gets stuck
On Saturday, 11 February 2012 at 01:31:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Sorry for the double-post; I have asked the same question on
D.learn earlier but I think this is more of a question to this
forum.
Tested on Ubuntu 11.10 64-bit dmd.
The following program gets stuck during the writeln() call.
- Note that the foo() call alone works fine.
- Also note that the program works fine when there is no
writeln() call nor foo() call. All elements get processed in
that case and the results are ignored.
Am I using taskPool.map incorrectly or is this a bug? Can you
help identify where the problem may be? How is writeln() using
the range differently than foo() to cause this behavior?
import std.stdio;
import std.parallelism;
import core.thread;
int func(int i)
{
writeln("processing ", i);
return i;
}
void main()
{
auto results = taskPool.map!func([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8], 2);
writeln(results); // <-- Gets stuck HERE
foo(results); // this works fine
}
void foo(R)(R range)
{
for ( ; !range.empty; range.popFront()) {
writeln(range.front);
}
}
Thank you,
Ali
For what I see, maybe that's because it's a "non-random access
ranges". So to access "results", you need access from it's
aggregate...
try this inside your main:
foreach(int r; results)
writeln(r);
// foo(results); // this works fin
Re: [your code here]
Nice, but just a little thing:
switch(toUpper(returned)) {
case 'Y': break checkLoop;
case 'H': {low=guess; break;}
case 'L': {high=guess; break;}
default: break;
}
PS: Yeah you can you tolower() too!
On Friday, 17 February 2012 at 23:50:32 UTC, Matt Soucy wrote:
#!/usr/bin/rdmd
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
uint guesses=0, high=100, low=0, guess=50;
char returned;
writef("Please choose a number between %s and %s.\n");
writef("Press enter to begin.",low,high);
readln();
checkLoop:
do {
guess = (high-low)/2+low; // Avoid overflow (shouldn't
occur)
writef("Is your number %s? [(y)es, (h)igher, (l)ower]
", guess);
readf("%c", &returned);
readln();
switch(returned) {
case 'y','Y': break checkLoop;
case 'h','H': {low=guess; break;}
case 'l','L': {high=guess; break;}
default: break;
}
} while(++guesses);
writef("I guessed your number in %s moves!\n", guesses);
}
This piece is something I wrote quickly for /r/dailyprogrammer
(By the way, is the person who has been posting D solutions to
that on here?)
It's a really simple piece, but it shows %s, breaking from a
loop from inside a switch, etc.
Re: D as a prototyping language (for C/C++ projects)
On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 15:26:17 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote: I was curious to know if anyone else uses D like this. I usually do this, but in a little different way. I wrote my code in a interpreted language, and then I port to D or C languages.
Re: The kind of documentation people like
On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 at 08:17:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
What I get from this is that people really like PHP's
documentation style where users can add to it.
Of course, plus the rank system, (where the best answers appears
first), you "almost" have a winner.
I said "almost", because I've seen answers that were classified
("despite working") above other better or optmized answers
because of the date they were posted.
IMHO maybe in programming side, it would be nice to have an
additional technical vote walking together with rank system.
Re: request switch statement with common block
On Saturday, 3 August 2013 at 14:38:48 UTC, JS wrote:
switch (cond)
common: always executed code here
case A : etc...
}
instead of
if (cond) { always executed code here }
switch (cond)
case A : etc...
}
which requires modification of the condition twice when
necessary
Why don't you just:
switch(cond)
{
default:
// YOUR COMMON HERE
case A:
...
break;
...
}
Re: request switch statement with common block
On Monday, 5 August 2013 at 04:07:55 UTC, Andre Artus wrote:
Andre Artus:
int number;
string message;
switch (number)
{
default: // valid: ends with 'throw'
throw new Exception("unknown number");
case 3:
message ~= "three "; break;
case 4:
message ~= "four "; continue;
case 5:
message ~= "five "; goto case;
case 6:
message ~= "six "; break;
case 1:
case 2:
message = "one or two";
}
With the inclusion of 'default' the condition covers the
whole range of 'int'. The programmer may only want the pre
and post code to be executed for every other case (1..6).
MattCoder:
Like I said, it would be nice if we could extend some D
features without change the compiler source, maybe like macros
in LISP.
It may not always be the case, but in my experience this often
leads to write-only code.
I'm pretty new to D, so I'm not quite up to speed with the
metaprogramming abilities, but I'm under the impression that
this is what mixin's are for.
Well I'm not experienced too, but mixin's for what I know just
works in compiler time right?
But anyway it would be possible to write my own switch version
with mixin? I really would like to see this.
Matheus.
