Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 01:11:09 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: I think it's safe to say this guy is just trolling and we can ignore him. I was about to say the same, Mike. He is either trolling, or genuinely did not even bother to learn some language basics...
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 19:10:18 UTC, chmike wrote: Claiming the problems you encountered are due to bad design of the language is unfair if you don't expose clearly the problem and verify the problem is not your side. There is a deeply thought rationale for every rule of the D language. If you don't understand the rationale or want to contest the choice of rules, then expose your point and arguments. People will helpfully answer you. I did it myself and was always impressed by the quality of the responses and positive and helpful attitude of people in this forum. I think it's safe to say this guy is just trolling and we can ignore him.
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 17:00:49 UTC, Guido wrote: On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:40:57 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote: On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:33:58 UTC, Guido wrote: The problem is actually much more profound. The classes need to be declared outside the main() scope. WTF?!?!?! I put them in main() so they would be in scope. This seems like a *MAJOR* design flaw with the language, not to mention the compiler not giving useful feedback. This decision, if it is a decision, makes no sense given all the attention to scoping rules. I'm not interested in trading one set of bad language decisions for another. Can someone fix this? I wonder which language you usually use in your programming experience. C++ I have all this business generally working in C++. I just wanted to try D for a production level quick project. So, the language is not ready. I'm really sad about this. I had hoped that I could get some useful work done. C++ is painfully slow to write & debug, but what can you do. As I said, why exchange one set of bad design decisions for another? On another topic, tuples seem to have a major problem as well. Tuple!(float, float, float) test; Tuple!(float, float, float) [] array_data; test[0] = 1.0; // works array_data[i][0] = 1.0; // doesn't work. Compile-time error, Why don't you give at least the compiler error and the full code ? If you don't want to publish your actual code, create a very small program reproducing the problem and show that to us. I understand your frustration, but understand that there are many people here that volunteer to help you. You have to provide them sufficient info for this to work. Tuple!(float, float, float) [] array_data; This declares a dynamic array that is initially empty (array_data.length == 0). Accessing the i'th item can't work. I'm a bit surprised the compiler would detect this problem because it is usually a run time error. So I suspect there are other problems with your code. You could also have written array_data ~= test; which appends the value test to the dynamic array that will then contain one element. You could then have written array_data[0][0] = 2.0; Or you could also have written Tuple!(float, float, float) [10] array_data; which would have declared array_data as a fixed sized array of 10 tuples. In this case writing array_data[1][0] = 1.0; would have worked. D is an excellent and mature language. Every language has its rules that needs to be learn. Claiming the problems you encountered are due to bad design of the language is unfair if you don't expose clearly the problem and verify the problem is not your side. There is a deeply thought rationale for every rule of the D language. If you don't understand the rationale or want to contest the choice of rules, then expose your point and arguments. People will helpfully answer you. I did it myself and was always impressed by the quality of the responses and positive and helpful attitude of people in this forum.
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On 06/29/2016 10:00 AM, Guido wrote:
> doesn't work.
As others said, everything that you've mentioned do indeed work:
void main() {
class Grid {
public:
static uint xdim;
}
class Holder : Grid {
uint var;
}
Grid.xdim = 0;
auto grid = new Grid;
grid.xdim = 0;
auto holder = new Holder;
holder.xdim = 0;
import std.typecons;
Tuple!(float, float, float) test;
Tuple!(float, float, float) [] array_data;
array_data ~= tuple(1.0f, 2.0f, 3.0f);
test[0] = 1.0;
int i = 0;
array_data[i][0] = 1.0;
}
Ali
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On 06/29/2016 07:00 PM, Guido wrote: On another topic, tuples seem to have a major problem as well. Tuple!(float, float, float) test; Tuple!(float, float, float) [] array_data; test[0] = 1.0; // works array_data[i][0] = 1.0; // doesn't work. Works just fine for me, if I add the missing pieces (imports, main, set i, put something in array_data). Please post complete code, the compile command, the compiler version you're using, and the error message you get. This applies to the original post as well.
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:40:57 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote: On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:33:58 UTC, Guido wrote: The problem is actually much more profound. The classes need to be declared outside the main() scope. WTF?!?!?! I put them in main() so they would be in scope. This seems like a *MAJOR* design flaw with the language, not to mention the compiler not giving useful feedback. This decision, if it is a decision, makes no sense given all the attention to scoping rules. I'm not interested in trading one set of bad language decisions for another. Can someone fix this? I wonder which language you usually use in your programming experience. C++ I have all this business generally working in C++. I just wanted to try D for a production level quick project. So, the language is not ready. I'm really sad about this. I had hoped that I could get some useful work done. C++ is painfully slow to write & debug, but what can you do. As I said, why exchange one set of bad design decisions for another? On another topic, tuples seem to have a major problem as well. Tuple!(float, float, float) test; Tuple!(float, float, float) [] array_data; test[0] = 1.0; // works array_data[i][0] = 1.0; // doesn't work. Compile-time error, probably because the language itself doesn't have a dedicated extension for tuple elements that is distinguished from array dereferencing. This is the logical extension of how to access tuples. I normally use structs in C++, but since pointer arithmetic is really frowned upon in D, I decided to use Tuples. A mistake, I supposed. So, I've spent a huge amount of time getting ready to write in D. That's all wasted. I'll check back in another 10 years to see if your hobby language is still around. In the mean time, try to think about improving the compiler error messages. I can write code any way the language demands, but it has to make sense and I can't be doing a research project on the language every 10 minutes to figure out the right incantation. I already have that with C++. Bye
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:33:58 UTC, Guido wrote: The problem is actually much more profound. The classes need to be declared outside the main() scope. WTF?!?!?! I put them in main() so they would be in scope. This seems like a *MAJOR* design flaw with the language, not to mention the compiler not giving useful feedback. This decision, if it is a decision, makes no sense given all the attention to scoping rules. I'm not interested in trading one set of bad language decisions for another. Can someone fix this? I wonder which language you usually use in your programming experience.
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:33:58 UTC, Guido wrote:
The problem is actually much more profound. The classes need to
be declared outside the main() scope. WTF?!?!?!
It's not going to work anywhere if you type 'Class' as opposed to
'class'. Types can be declared in any scope:
```
void main() {
class Foo {
static int x = 10;
}
assert(Foo.x == 10);
}
```
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:33:58 UTC, Guido wrote: The problem is actually much more profound. The classes need to be declared outside the main() scope. WTF?!?!?! Not true. What are you actually trying to compile?
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:18:53 UTC, Guido wrote:
I'm using a static class member in a parent class, but can't
get the compiler to see it.
Class Grid{
public:
uint xdim;
}
Class Holder : Grid {
uint var;
}
Any of the following should work, but none of them do:
Grid.xdim = 0;
grid = new Grid;
grid.xdim = 0;
holder = new Holder;
holder.xdim = 0;
This is the way static class vars were intended to work. What
magics have I forgotten?
Platform
DMD latest, Windows 7
Visual D
The problem is actually much more profound. The classes need to
be declared outside the main() scope. WTF?!?!?!
I put them in main() so they would be in scope. This seems like a
*MAJOR* design flaw with the language, not to mention the
compiler not giving useful feedback. This decision, if it is a
decision, makes no sense given all the attention to scoping rules.
I'm not interested in trading one set of bad language decisions
for another. Can someone fix this?
Re: What's the secret to static class members
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 15:18:53 UTC, Guido wrote:
I'm using a static class member in a parent class, but can't
get the compiler to see it.
Class Grid{
public:
uint xdim;
}
That's not static do `static uint xdim;` if you want it
static (in this context, static means it is shared across all
objects of the class)
grid = new Grid;
grid.xdim = 0;
holder = new Holder;
holder.xdim = 0;
those DO work if you declare the variable
auto grid = new Grid;
grid.xdim = 0;
auto holder = new Holder;
holder.xdim = 0;
What's the secret to static class members
I'm using a static class member in a parent class, but can't get
the compiler to see it.
Class Grid{
public:
uint xdim;
}
Class Holder : Grid {
uint var;
}
Any of the following should work, but none of them do:
Grid.xdim = 0;
grid = new Grid;
grid.xdim = 0;
holder = new Holder;
holder.xdim = 0;
This is the way static class vars were intended to work. What
magics have I forgotten?
Platform
DMD latest, Windows 7
Visual D
