Re: Deprecation: foreach: loop index implicitly converted from size_t to int
A horrible alternative would be to use `alias` on `size_t` to
make up a new pseudo-type that is more aligned with the code
logic.
```
alias integer = size_t;
import std.stdio : writefln;
void main() {
auto arr = [
[5, 15], // 20
[2, 3, 2, 3], // 10
[3, 6, 2, 9], // 20
];
foreach (integer i, row; arr)
{
double total = 0.0;
foreach (e; row)
total += e;
auto avg = total / row.length;
writefln("AVG [row=%d]: %.2f", i, avg);
}
}
```
FIFO
I need a FIFO for a work scheduler, and nothing suitable jumped
out at me. I wrote the following, but as a newbie, would be
happy to receive any suggestions or observations. TIA!
/*
* fifo.d
* FIFO data structure
*/
module tiny.fifo;
import std.exception : enforce;
const uint GROWBY = 16;
/*
* This is a FIFO, with "hd" walking forward and "tl" trailing
* behind:
*tl hd /Add here next
*v v
* | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
*
* Mildly complicated by a module-size indexing.
*/
struct FIFO(T) {
T[] items;
ulong hd, tl, length;
void
add(T t) {
// Make more room when needed
if (this.items.length == this.length) {
assert(this.hd == this.tl);
// Add room and shuffle current contents
auto olen = this.items.length;
auto newlen = olen + GROWBY;
this.items.length = newlen;
this.tl = (this.tl + GROWBY) % newlen;
// Shuffle what we're butted up against to their
// new position at the top of this.items[]
ulong moved = olen - this.hd;
this.items[$ - moved .. $] =
this.items[this.hd .. this.hd + moved];
}
// Add item at next position
this.items[hd] = t;
this.hd = (this.hd + 1) % this.items.length;
this.length += 1;
}
// Give back next
T
next() {
enforce(this.length > 0, "next() from empty FIFO");
this.length -= 1;
auto res = this.items[this.tl];
this.tl = (this.tl + 1) % this.items.length;
return res;
}
}
unittest {
auto f = FIFO!uint();
f.add(1);
f.add(2);
f.add(3);
assert(f.next() == 1);
assert(f.next() == 2);
assert(f.next() == 3);
assert(f.length == 0);
// Now overflow several times
f = FIFO!uint();
foreach(x; 0 .. GROWBY * 3 + GROWBY/2) {
f.add(x);
}
foreach(x; 0 .. GROWBY * 3 + GROWBY/2) {
assert(f.next() == x);
}
assert(f.length == 0);
}
version(unittest) {
void
main()
{
}
}
Re: How to load a DLL file in D?
On Saturday, 11 May 2024 at 20:04:38 UTC, Lance Bachmeier wrote: On Saturday, 11 May 2024 at 19:33:03 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote: I know that BindBC exists and otherwise would use it, but the bigger the library, the more extra hurdle it'll have. When I did a few bindings with it, I had to order the functions the right way, so I could do things much quicker with the Ctrl+Alt+Shift trick under VSCode, and even then having to write both a statically linked and dynamically linked version (the latter which required the functions to be loaded individually into function pointers). Maybe I should write some automation tool... You might find this package useful https://code.dlang.org/packages/dynamic Also relevant if they're C functions: https://forum.dlang.org/post/qxctappnigkwvaqak...@forum.dlang.org And this if you want to convert C headers to D code: https://forum.dlang.org/post/ugvc3o$5t3$1...@digitalmars.com
Re: How to load a DLL file in D?
On Saturday, 11 May 2024 at 19:33:03 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote: I know that BindBC exists and otherwise would use it, but the bigger the library, the more extra hurdle it'll have. When I did a few bindings with it, I had to order the functions the right way, so I could do things much quicker with the Ctrl+Alt+Shift trick under VSCode, and even then having to write both a statically linked and dynamically linked version (the latter which required the functions to be loaded individually into function pointers). Maybe I should write some automation tool... You might find this package useful https://code.dlang.org/packages/dynamic
Re: Why is Phobos `Flag` so overthought ?
On Thursday, 9 May 2024 at 18:48:12 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote: We have a tool in our box already called `true` and that solves the problem. If we had to type out the full name of every argument passed to every function ever written we may as well just adopt ObjC Cocoa style and call it StopWatchWithAutoStartBool(). Strawman. Not at all. I mean exactly that. Why do you believe this function is so important it needs to have its argument type explicitly stated, when most functions don't? Either that, or you believe all functions should. It's arbitrary and pointless.
