Bill Baxter wrote:
> 4..$
> 4u..$
> etc?
Aside from the inconsistent meaning of $, you still can't have an
inclusive range [a, b], where 'a' and 'b' are not only known at runtime,
without treating 'b == int.max' as a special case.
--
Rainer Deyke - rain...@eldwood.com
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Daniel Keep wrote:
>
> Yes, a..b is very nice. It's also a bad syntax for intervals. As Don
> keeps pointing out, you can't have an interval that includes int.max
> with that syntax.
>
4..$
4u..$
etc?
--bb
On 2009-02-27 23:02:30 -0500, Daniel Keep said:
On the whole, I think the use cases for this sort of syntax are just far
too few and specialised to warrant syntax for them, especially when the
syntax proposed is very restrictive.
Especially when you can do it in a library without too much effo
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:33:15 +1100, Daniel Keep wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>> I don't think this should be in the language... it just feels like
>>> there isn't enough use for it. Especially not when you can implement
>>> it as a library.
>>>
>>> As proof, I've att
Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2009-02-27 09:47:30 -0500, Daniel Keep
> said:
>
>>> assert(index in 0.._size);
>>
>> I don't think this should be in the language... it just feels like there
>> isn't enough use for it. Especially not when you can implement it as a
>> library.
>
> Well, if a..b simpl
== Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article
> == Quote from Jason House (jason.james.ho...@gmail.com)'s article
> > Are there any good reasons to allow built in arrays to be resizable?
> > There's already plenty of empirical evidence that building arrays by
> > appending
> is incredibly sl
On 2009-02-27 09:47:30 -0500, Daniel Keep said:
assert(index in 0.._size);
I don't think this should be in the language... it just feels like there
isn't enough use for it. Especially not when you can implement it as a
library.
Well, if a..b simply maps to an interval type in the standard
On 2009-02-27 08:44:31 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-02-27 04:43:46 -0500, bearophile said:
D2 supports the interval syntax in the foreach:
foreach (i; 1..1000) {...}
Such intervals are useful in a very large number of situations. So,
with the new Range supp
== Quote from Jason House (jason.james.ho...@gmail.com)'s article
> Are there any good reasons to allow built in arrays to be resizable?
> There's already plenty of empirical evidence that building arrays by appending
is incredibly slow.
> There are also bugs in bugzilla where resizing arrays after
Jason House wrote:
Are there any good reasons to allow built in arrays to be resizable?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/builtin.html
There's already plenty of empirical evidence that building arrays by
appending is incredibly slow.
You need to really get into programming in D and explore
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:27:52 +0300, Jason House
wrote:
BCS Wrote:
Reply to tim,
> Theres nothing stopping you from having all your arrays static in D. I
> think your crazy :)
>
I think the thought is that arrays can have dynamic length but can't be
changed
after allocation.
Right. Len
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:19 AM, bearophile wrote:
suresh:
In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for
development
and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy.
Also take a look at LDC:
http://www.dsource.org/pr
BCS Wrote:
> Reply to tim,
>
> > Theres nothing stopping you from having all your arrays static in D. I
> > think your crazy :)
> >
>
> I think the thought is that arrays can have dynamic length but can't be
> changed
> after allocation.
Right. Length is fixed until (re)allication.
> star
Reply to tim,
Theres nothing stopping you from having all your arrays static in D. I
think your crazy :)
I think the thought is that arrays can have dynamic length but can't be changed
after allocation.
starting with:
int[] arr = new int[15];
assigning to length
arr.length = 30;
would
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:55:44 +1300, Jason House
wrote:
Are there any good reasons to allow built in arrays to be resizable?
There's already plenty of empirical evidence that building arrays by
appending is incredibly slow.
There are also bugs in bugzilla where resizing arrays after assig
Are there any good reasons to allow built in arrays to be resizable?
There's already plenty of empirical evidence that building arrays by appending
is incredibly slow.
There are also bugs in bugzilla where resizing arrays after assigning one array
to another violates type safety. Those bugs can
dsimcha:
> Under what circumstances is this actually true?
At the moment I think that spec is pure theory for DMD, even if it's worded to
almost sound as the compiler already works like that :-)
>As far as I can tell, there is no way DMD could know about the whole class
>hierarchy when genera
According to the spec:
"Virtual functions are functions that are called indirectly through a function
pointer table, called a vtbl[], rather than directly. All non-static
non-private non-template member functions are virtual. This may sound
inefficient, but since the D compiler knows all of the cl
bearophile wrote:
As an alternative syntax may be:
foreach (i; 1:10) {...}
foreach (i; 10 : 1 : -1) {...}
foreach (i; 0.0 : 10.5 : 0.5) {...}
I have an idea - we define a contextual keyword "iota" that helps us
specify from, to, and stride. Then we can write:
foreach (i; iota(0.0, 10.5, 0.5
On 2009-02-23 14:48:50 +0100, Chad J said:
Don wrote:
So it looks to me as though with the minimal language changes, we could
get almost complete SIMD support, with excellent syntax.
enum { x=0, y=1, z=2, w=3 }
float[4] foo;
foo[x] = 42;
foo[y] = foo[x];
// etc
foo[] = [foo[y],foo[x],foo[y
Don:
>How do you specify a uint range that includes uint.max?<
The interval I was talking about may generate integers only (it may be possible
to generate longs and chars too if you give it long/char extrema, but I am not
sure this is a good idea).
>This is a perfect example of what Andrei re
I think Ruby is a good example of a good way to implement intervals. Ruby
exposes them as a class object, so that you can instantiate them as
Range.new(min,max), and a Range object iterable and can easily be converted to
an array. It also supports inclusion testing. The only thing it doesn't do
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:19 AM, bearophile wrote:
> suresh:
>> In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for
>> development
>> and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy.
>
> Also take a look at LDC:
> http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc
> Th
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:01 AM, suresh wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> I am embedded systems programmer. I crave to use D when I have to use C/C++.
>
> I would like to see dmd support cross-compilation for ARM(9) family.
Downs has gotten GDC to work on ARM at least to an extent. He was
using it to make
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> I don't think this should be in the language... it just feels like there
>> isn't enough use for it. Especially not when you can implement it as a
>> library.
>>
>> As proof, I've attached an implementation of an integral interval.
>> Here's a s
Daniel Keep wrote:
I don't think this should be in the language... it just feels like there
isn't enough use for it. Especially not when you can implement it as a
library.
As proof, I've attached an implementation of an integral interval.
Here's a sample of usage (the program prints this if you
Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:44:31 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>> I'm having trouble understanding what's wrong with the good old data
>> types and functions.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> The syntax. One may want to reuse 0..100 syntax to generate random number:
> auto x = random(0.
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:44:31 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-02-27 04:43:46 -0500, bearophile
said:
D2 supports the interval syntax in the foreach:
foreach (i; 1..1000) {...}
Such intervals are useful in a very large number of situati
bearophile wrote:
D2 supports the interval syntax in the foreach:
foreach (i; 1..1000) {...}
Such intervals are useful in a very large number of situations. So, with the
new Range support, it may be useful to allow the interval syntax to be used in
other contexts as well.
So x..y may become a
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:44:31 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-02-27 04:43:46 -0500, bearophile
said:
D2 supports the interval syntax in the foreach:
foreach (i; 1..1000) {...}
Such intervals are useful in a very large number of situations. So,
with the ne
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-02-27 04:43:46 -0500, bearophile said:
D2 supports the interval syntax in the foreach:
foreach (i; 1..1000) {...}
Such intervals are useful in a very large number of situations. So,
with the new Range support, it may be useful to allow the interval
syntax to be
bearophile wrote:
> Michel Fortin:
...
>> Perhaps we could make 3 dots mean an inclusive interval (including the
>> second value in the interval), and 2 dots an exclusive one (excluding
>> the second value).
>
> Ruby follows your idea, but for the eye it's easy to miss the extra dot,
so I don'
Michel Fortin:
> In the D/Objective-C bridge, I've defined the NSRange struct (a Cocoa
> type representing an integer interval) so it can be created by typing
> NSRange[start..end] in adition to the traditional NSMakeRange(start,
> length). It's better than nothing, but even better would be the
On 2009-02-27 04:43:46 -0500, bearophile said:
D2 supports the interval syntax in the foreach:
foreach (i; 1..1000) {...}
Such intervals are useful in a very large number of situations. So,
with the new Range support, it may be useful to allow the interval
syntax to be used in other contexts
bearophile:
> For the compiler that's syntax sugar of (a>0 && a<10).
I meant:
(a >= 0 && a < 10)
D2 supports the interval syntax in the foreach:
foreach (i; 1..1000) {...}
Such intervals are useful in a very large number of situations. So, with the
new Range support, it may be useful to allow the interval syntax to be used in
other contexts as well.
So x..y may become a first-class lazy int
suresh:
> In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for
> development
> and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy.
Also take a look at LDC:
http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc
The backend doesn't support exceptions on Windows (the Linux64 and
Hi Walter,
I am embedded systems programmer. I crave to use D when I have to use C/C++.
I would like to see dmd support cross-compilation for ARM(9) family.
In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for
development
and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platfor
Walter Bright Wrote:
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
[...]
> > Heh, thanks! I hope my opus really worths mentioning.
>
> I think it is.
Shouldn't things like these maybe be included under the "Tech Tips" on
digitalmars.com or so?
Ciao
TomD
39 matches
Mail list logo
