Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Friday, 29 September 2017 at 22:15:44 UTC, Mengu wrote: On Friday, 29 September 2017 at 02:34:08 UTC, DreadKyller wrote: [...] +1 for forum issue. +1 please...
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Friday, 29 September 2017 at 02:34:08 UTC, DreadKyller wrote: On Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 14:01:33 UTC, user1234 wrote: [...] I understand that, but because the operator isn't defined normally for classes unless overloaded, then your statement about this being an inconsistency on the concerns stated prior about wrecking implementation of standard features. If & can't be overloaded then the type of will always be a pointer, you can't override the dereference operator of the pointer itself as far as I can tell, overloading it on the class doesn't overload the pointer, thus any standard implementation that uses pointers to store an object would be completely unaffected by overloading the dereference operator. This I don't consider it an inconsistency. [...] +1 for forum issue.
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 14:01:33 UTC, user1234 wrote: On Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 00:11:56 UTC, DreadKyller wrote: Notice how dereferencing the pointer did not call the overloaded function, because a pointer to Test is not the same type as a Test. Yeah, this is rather made to implement fat pointers. I understand that, but because the operator isn't defined normally for classes unless overloaded, then your statement about this being an inconsistency on the concerns stated prior about wrecking implementation of standard features. If & can't be overloaded then the type of will always be a pointer, you can't override the dereference operator of the pointer itself as far as I can tell, overloading it on the class doesn't overload the pointer, thus any standard implementation that uses pointers to store an object would be completely unaffected by overloading the dereference operator. This I don't consider it an inconsistency. Also Johnathan, yeah, the forum.dlang.org is the same for me as kinke said, most the time it goes thorugh nearly immediately, but sometimes (about 1/4'th) it takes multiple minutes. The thing is that I can open 3 tabs all loading the same page, on multiple web browsers, and they'll all stall, then suddenly all of them load at the same time. If it persists I may ry making a post as you suggested.
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 00:11:56 UTC, DreadKyller wrote: On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 23:24:58 UTC, user1234 wrote: Notice how dereferencing the pointer did not call the overloaded function, because a pointer to Test is not the same type as a Test. Yeah, this is rather made to implement fat pointers.
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On 9/27/17 12:35 PM, DreadKyller wrote:
Been using D for a couple years now, however one problem I've had, more
so recently since I've been dealing a lot with OpenGL is related to
pointers.
I have a matrix object to aid with the matrix math required for working
with 3D transforms. However OpenGL (I'm using DerelictGL3 bindings)
requires pointers to the data. I am currently doing the following:
Matrix!float ortho(float l, float r, float b, float t, float f, float n
= -1)
{
Matrix!float oMat = identity(); // Get default Identity Matrix
oMat[0,0] = 2 / (r - l);
oMat[1,1] = 2 / (t - b);
oMat[2,2] = -2 / (f - n);
oMat[3] = [-(r+l)/(r-l), -(t+b)/(t-b), -(f+n)/(f-n), 1];
return oMat;
}
And then to use with OpenGL (passing as uniform into shader):
glUniformMatrix4fv(transform_uniform, 1, GL_FALSE, matrix.addr );
where addr is a property that returns the address of the first item in
the Matrix's internal data. I know I can also use [0][0]
This is what I would do. For each prototype that takes a matrix pointer,
I would create an overloaded prototype that takes a pointer to your
matrix type instead. The overloaded prototype would then simply call the
real function with the matrix.addr property.
Using metaprogramming, you could probably generate this based on the
current opengl module.
Then your ported code doesn't need to change.
-Steve
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 10:24:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 22:01:26 DreadKyller via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: Also off-topic slightly, but am I the only one with massive latency on this site? It took like almost 2 minutes from me hitting reply before this page showed up, and my last few posts took like a minute to post, and all other sites I've been to don't have that problem, is that a problem with the site or am I the only one with this issue? Historically, it's been lightning fast, so if it's slow right now, there's a definite problem. There may be something else running on that server that's causing problems. If the problem persists, I'd suggest opening a thread in the main forum about it, and that might get Vladimir's attention. I already tried, in vain so far, performance is lightning fast in about 90% of my requests, and catastrophic in the other 10%: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/vndgejrhmqynthwbf...@forum.dlang.org
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 22:01:26 DreadKyller via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: > Also off-topic slightly, but am I the only one with massive > latency on this site? It took like almost 2 minutes from me > hitting reply before this page showed up, and my last few posts > took like a minute to post, and all other sites I've been to > don't have that problem, is that a problem with the site or am I > the only one with this issue? Historically, it's been lightning fast, so if it's slow right now, there's a definite problem. There may be something else running on that server that's causing problems. If the problem persists, I'd suggest opening a thread in the main forum about it, and that might get Vladimir's attention. Personally, I never use the website as the frontend to the newsgroup. I always use the mailing list, so I have no clue how the website has been performing lately. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 23:24:58 UTC, user1234 wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 21:01:36 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 16:35:54 UTC, DreadKyller
wrote:
My question is about overloading, several operators can be
overloaded in D, one of the ones that can't apparently is the
address of operator (). My question is have I simply
missed it or does it actually not exist, and if it's not
overloadable, is there any reason why this was decided?
Because there's been numerous times that it'd be useful to
me, just recently with how much I use the operator because of
OpenGL I decided to ask.
My answer is that & is a defined operation on all addressable
memory. Unlike other operators which don't exist until you
"overload" them.
Yes but the dereference operator can be overloaded. The
reasoning doesn't stand, unless that's recognized as an
inconsistency.
Except that no it actually doesn't. The Unary operator * doesn't
overload the dereferencing of a pointer, take the following code:
class Test
{
Test opUnary(string s)() if (s == "*")
{
writeln("Overloaded operator called");
return this;
}
}
void testFunc()
{
Test test = new Test();
Test* test_ptr =
writeln("== *test ==");
Test other = *test;
writeln("== *test_ptr ==");
other = *test_ptr;
writeln("== end ==");
}
This outputs:
== *test ==
Overloaded operator called
== *test_ptr ==
== end ==
Notice how dereferencing the pointer did not call the overloaded
function, because a pointer to Test is not the same type as a
Test.
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 21:01:36 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 16:35:54 UTC, DreadKyller wrote: My question is about overloading, several operators can be overloaded in D, one of the ones that can't apparently is the address of operator (). My question is have I simply missed it or does it actually not exist, and if it's not overloadable, is there any reason why this was decided? Because there's been numerous times that it'd be useful to me, just recently with how much I use the operator because of OpenGL I decided to ask. My answer is that & is a defined operation on all addressable memory. Unlike other operators which don't exist until you "overload" them. Yes but the dereference operator can be overloaded. The reasoning doesn't stand, unless that's recognized as an inconsistency.
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 21:18:50 UTC, nkm1 wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 20:24:24 UTC, DreadKyller
wrote:
The attitude of "some people use this feature incorrectly, so
let's ban it's use entirely" is honestly ridiculous to me, but
oh well, that's apparently the modern philosophy.
Not even modern, see Java :) ("I left out operator overloading
as a fairly personal choice because I had seen too many people
abuse it in C++." - James Gosling)
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that not allowing operator
overloading is new, and Java doesn't allow any, like at all,
compared to D just not allowing a handful. And I wasn't referring
to operator overloading specifically, I was talking in general
about how it's become more common with modern languages to try
being overly safe, in attempt to prevent users from making
mistakes. It's not that it's particularly problematic, but it
does tend to make some more recent languages far more verbose and
tedious to type. This philosophy has existed since very early on,
it's just become more common in the last decade or so. I just
disagree with the concept, I just happen to feel that had the
effort that was put into the philosophy and design of making
things safer had been put into educating and developing better
tools and resources then the need for such restrictions would be
less essential. In general I feel D has a good balance of this,
there are restrictions that I dislike, but can work around them
because or the benefits of the language, despite what I see as
several flaws in the design personally, it's still currently my
favorite language.
Also off-topic slightly, but am I the only one with massive
latency on this site? It took like almost 2 minutes from me
hitting reply before this page showed up, and my last few posts
took like a minute to post, and all other sites I've been to
don't have that problem, is that a problem with the site or am I
the only one with this issue?
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 20:24:24 UTC, DreadKyller
wrote:
The attitude of "some people use this feature incorrectly, so
let's ban it's use entirely" is honestly ridiculous to me, but
oh well, that's apparently the modern philosophy.
Not even modern, see Java :) ("I left out operator overloading as
a fairly personal choice because I had seen too many people abuse
it in C++." - James Gosling)
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 21:01:36 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: For example, if you store your Matrix in a custom container it could try to store pointer rather than the struct itself, if & is overloaded the generic implementation would be broken because it would no longer be a pointer to Matrix but to the inner element. Whereas generic code which utilizes addition or append can assume the type appropriately defined the behavior to semantically match the desired use, generic code would be broken if the type changed & to do something different from what the language defines it to do. Alright, that makes sense, that's some valid reasoning, I can accept that.
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 16:35:54 UTC, DreadKyller wrote: My question is about overloading, several operators can be overloaded in D, one of the ones that can't apparently is the address of operator (). My question is have I simply missed it or does it actually not exist, and if it's not overloadable, is there any reason why this was decided? Because there's been numerous times that it'd be useful to me, just recently with how much I use the operator because of OpenGL I decided to ask. My answer is that & is a defined operation on all addressable memory. Unlike other operators which don't exist until you "overload" them. For example, if you store your Matrix in a custom container it could try to store pointer rather than the struct itself, if & is overloaded the generic implementation would be broken because it would no longer be a pointer to Matrix but to the inner element. Whereas generic code which utilizes addition or append can assume the type appropriately defined the behavior to semantically match the desired use, generic code would be broken if the type changed & to do something different from what the language defines it to do.
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 19:55:07 UTC, nkm1 wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 16:35:54 UTC, DreadKyller
wrote:
Been using D for a couple years now, however one problem I've
had, more so recently since I've been dealing a lot with
OpenGL is related to pointers.
I have a matrix object to aid with the matrix math required
for working with 3D transforms. However OpenGL (I'm using
DerelictGL3 bindings) requires pointers to the data. I am
currently doing the following:
Matrix!float ortho(float l, float r, float b, float t, float
f, float n = -1)
{
Matrix!float oMat = identity(); // Get default Identity Matrix
oMat[0,0] = 2 / (r - l);
oMat[1,1] = 2 / (t - b);
oMat[2,2] = -2 / (f - n);
oMat[3] = [-(r+l)/(r-l), -(t+b)/(t-b), -(f+n)/(f-n), 1];
return oMat;
}
And then to use with OpenGL (passing as uniform into shader):
glUniformMatrix4fv(transform_uniform, 1, GL_FALSE, matrix.addr
);
where addr is a property that returns the address of the first
item in the Matrix's internal data. I know I can also use
[0][0]
My question is about overloading, several operators can be
overloaded in D, one of the ones that can't apparently is the
address of operator (). My question is have I simply
missed it or does it actually not exist, and if it's not
overloadable, is there any reason why this was decided?
Because there's been numerous times that it'd be useful to me,
just recently with how much I use the operator because of
OpenGL I decided to ask.
& is not overloadable, presumably because some people were
annoyed by abuse of operator overloading in C++. The reason is
to improve readability (of other people's code).
Just rename matrix.addr to matrix.ptr... like in arrays:
https://dlang.org/spec/arrays.html#array-properties
That would be clearer (opinion), since the reader of your code
can assume that matrix.ptr does the same thing with your matrix
as array.ptr does with arrays. OTOH, overloading to do
something different from built in seems like a
pointless obfuscation to me.
I mean to an extent I agree, but I moved from using GLfloat
arrays for matrix's to a Matrix object to aid in Matrix math like
multiplication, so I have to go through my code and in many
places change it to using matrix.ptr, considering that I have to
do this for every object in a scene multiple times for the
translation, scale, projection and etc matrix's it's more
tedious, and I'm the only one working on the code and I comment
and document my code a lot. If one thing annoys m e about
language design, it's when peoples actions dictate the decisions
of the language, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the
language to limit users in order to prevent bad habits or
practices, it should be the responsibility of education to do so.
The attitude of "some people use this feature incorrectly, so
let's ban it's use entirely" is honestly ridiculous to me, but oh
well, that's apparently the modern philosophy.
Re: Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 at 16:35:54 UTC, DreadKyller
wrote:
Been using D for a couple years now, however one problem I've
had, more so recently since I've been dealing a lot with OpenGL
is related to pointers.
I have a matrix object to aid with the matrix math required for
working with 3D transforms. However OpenGL (I'm using
DerelictGL3 bindings) requires pointers to the data. I am
currently doing the following:
Matrix!float ortho(float l, float r, float b, float t, float f,
float n = -1)
{
Matrix!float oMat = identity(); // Get default Identity Matrix
oMat[0,0] = 2 / (r - l);
oMat[1,1] = 2 / (t - b);
oMat[2,2] = -2 / (f - n);
oMat[3] = [-(r+l)/(r-l), -(t+b)/(t-b), -(f+n)/(f-n), 1];
return oMat;
}
And then to use with OpenGL (passing as uniform into shader):
glUniformMatrix4fv(transform_uniform, 1, GL_FALSE, matrix.addr
);
where addr is a property that returns the address of the first
item in the Matrix's internal data. I know I can also use
[0][0]
My question is about overloading, several operators can be
overloaded in D, one of the ones that can't apparently is the
address of operator (). My question is have I simply
missed it or does it actually not exist, and if it's not
overloadable, is there any reason why this was decided? Because
there's been numerous times that it'd be useful to me, just
recently with how much I use the operator because of OpenGL I
decided to ask.
& is not overloadable, presumably because some people were
annoyed by abuse of operator overloading in C++. The reason is to
improve readability (of other people's code).
Just rename matrix.addr to matrix.ptr... like in arrays:
https://dlang.org/spec/arrays.html#array-properties
That would be clearer (opinion), since the reader of your code
can assume that matrix.ptr does the same thing with your matrix
as array.ptr does with arrays. OTOH, overloading to do
something different from built in seems like a pointless
obfuscation to me.
Is it possible to specify the address returned by the address of operator?
Been using D for a couple years now, however one problem I've
had, more so recently since I've been dealing a lot with OpenGL
is related to pointers.
I have a matrix object to aid with the matrix math required for
working with 3D transforms. However OpenGL (I'm using DerelictGL3
bindings) requires pointers to the data. I am currently doing the
following:
Matrix!float ortho(float l, float r, float b, float t, float f,
float n = -1)
{
Matrix!float oMat = identity(); // Get default Identity Matrix
oMat[0,0] = 2 / (r - l);
oMat[1,1] = 2 / (t - b);
oMat[2,2] = -2 / (f - n);
oMat[3] = [-(r+l)/(r-l), -(t+b)/(t-b), -(f+n)/(f-n), 1];
return oMat;
}
And then to use with OpenGL (passing as uniform into shader):
glUniformMatrix4fv(transform_uniform, 1, GL_FALSE, matrix.addr );
where addr is a property that returns the address of the first
item in the Matrix's internal data. I know I can also use
[0][0]
My question is about overloading, several operators can be
overloaded in D, one of the ones that can't apparently is the
address of operator (). My question is have I simply
missed it or does it actually not exist, and if it's not
overloadable, is there any reason why this was decided? Because
there's been numerous times that it'd be useful to me, just
recently with how much I use the operator because of OpenGL I
decided to ask.
