Re: rebuild configuration
I recommend not to use rebuild anymore. It's horribly outdated. xfBuild is quite neat.
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
bearophile wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the
original bug report is valid.
The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code still. Is
the const implying a static only in some situations?
Why is this OK for the compiler:
struct Foo {
const Foo f = Foo();
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
While this is not OK for the compiler?
struct Foo {
const Foo f;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
Bye,
bearophile
In D1, the two are totally different. The second one is the only
situation in D1 where 'const' doesn't mean compile-time constant.
I guess the same behaviour has been applied in D2, but I'm not sure if
that's intentional or not.
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the
original bug report is valid.
The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code
still. Is the const implying a static only in some situations?
Why is this OK for the compiler:
struct Foo {
const Foo f = Foo();
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
While this is not OK for the compiler?
struct Foo {
const Foo f;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
Bye,
bearophile
In D1, the two are totally different. The second one is the only
situation in D1 where 'const' doesn't mean compile-time constant.
I guess the same behaviour has been applied in D2, but I'm not sure if
that's intentional or not.
D'oh, should read the title. This was a D1 question. Yes it's
intentional, and yes it's confusing.
Re: Loop optimization
bearophile wrote: Walter Bright: In my view, such switches are bad news, because:< The Intel compiler, Microsoft compiler, GCC and LLVM have a similar switch (fp:fast in the Microsoft compiler, -ffast-math on GCC, etc). So you might send your list of comments to the devs of each of those four compilers. If I agreed with everything other vendors did with their compilers, I wouldn't have built my own .
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
Don: > D'oh, should read the title. This was a D1 question. Yes it's > intentional, and yes it's confusing. Sorry, I have added more confusion. I have added this, but I have used DMD2: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4203 Bye, bearophile
Re: rebuild configuration
thanks. I've decided to quit rebuild too, besides I've found VisualD!!! -- Ruslan Mullakhmetov "Trass3r" сообщил(а) в новостях следующее:op.vcwiqeux3nc...@enigma.fem.tu-ilmenau.de... I recommend not to use rebuild anymore. It's horribly outdated. xfBuild is quite neat.
Re: rebuild configuration
I recently ran into Gregor Richards unexpectedly outside the context of D. It sounds like he's busy with grad school and not likely to turn back to development of Rebuild/DSSS any time soon. --bb On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:45 PM, theambient wrote: > thanks. > > I've decided to quit rebuild too, besides I've found VisualD!!! > > -- > Ruslan Mullakhmetov > > "Trass3r" сообщил(а) в новостях > следующее:op.vcwiqeux3nc...@enigma.fem.tu-ilmenau.de... >> >> I recommend not to use rebuild anymore. >> It's horribly outdated. >> >> xfBuild is quite neat. > >
std.range and opApply
What's the attitude of std.range toward opApply?
In some situations I use opApply (and I think some syntax sugar can be added to
define a yield, to make a third way to define lazy iterables in D) and I'd like
to write code like this too:
take(Range(100), 8)
import std.range: isInputRange, take;
struct Range {
int stop;
int opApply(int delegate(ref int) dg) {
int result;
for (int i = 0; i < stop; i++) {
result = dg(i);
if (result)
break;
}
return result;
}
}
void main() {
assert(isInputRange!Range);
auto r = take(Range(100), 8);
}
Is it planned to improve those std.range functions to work with opApply too, or
do I have to rewrite them all and them some in my dlibs2, so they can support
both the range protocol and opApply?
Bye,
bearophile
