"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:i2dio5$25m...@digitalmars.com...
>
> It's the greatest thing since sliced arrays.
That's the greatest quote since...well, I can't top that one, so I'm not
going to try :)
"anotherfoobar" wrote in message
news:i2d5lk$1dh...@digitalmars.com...
> (Can't contact the database server: Unknown database 'erdani_com_1'
> (mysql.erdani.com))
>
> http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/
So, I guess that would make this a "meta-errata", then. :)
On 7/23/2010 10:21 PM, dsimcha wrote:
class Foo {
Type _val;
typeof(this) val(Type newVal) {
_val = newVal;
return this;
}
}
class Bar : Foo {
// More properties.
}
void main() {
auto bar = new Bar;
bar.val(someValue).barProperty(someOtherValue);
I'm working on the next iteration of my Plot2Kill library, and I **really**
have fallen in love with property chaining. It's the greatest thing since
sliced arrays. However, I've run into an issue that I had previously
overlooked:
class Foo {
Type _val;
typeof(this) val(Type newVal) {
On 07/23/2010 03:18 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Let's set aside for a moment the problem that CTFE can take an
arbitrarily long time to run and that this cannot be predicted by any
sort of static analysis (isn't this what the halting problem is?).
The halting problem describes a program along with
On 07/23/2010 03:54 PM, Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
While running the semantic on each function body, the compiler
could fairly easily check to see if the function is CTFEable. (The
main complication is that it has to guess about
On 22/07/2010 23:00, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
collections has a feature where you can swap the underlying
implementation for something completely different.
ATM I find it pretty hard to implement an other underlying
implementation for dcollections.
Say an LL RBTree or an Skiplist for dcol
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Or, it has some database problems.
http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/index.php?title=Errata_for_%22The_D_Programming_Language%22_book
Luckily the cached version works fine:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nIyQeOaM1hAJ:erdani.com/tdpl/errata/index.php%3Ft
sybrandy Wrote:
> Not sure if this is what's used by an Appender, but this seems like a
> cool data structure:
>
> http://ahmadsoft.org/ropes/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_%28computer_science%29
>
> It's not good for indexing, but concatenation is an O(1) operation, so
> using it whe
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
> > Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > > Or, it has some database problems.
> > >
> > > http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/index.php?title=Errata_for_%22The_D_Programming_Language%22_book
> > >
> > > Luckily the cached version works fine:
> > > http://w
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > Or, it has some database problems.
> >
> > http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/index.php?title=Errata_for_%22The_D_Programming_Language%22_book
> >
> > Luckily the cached version works fine:
> > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cac
On 23/07/2010 23:43, sybrandy wrote:
Not sure if this is what's used by an Appender, but this seems like a
cool data structure:
http://ahmadsoft.org/ropes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_%28computer_science%29
It's not good for indexing, but concatenation is an O(1) operation, so
using it w
(Can't contact the database server: Unknown database 'erdani_com_1'
(mysql.erdani.com))
http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/
Or, it has some database problems.
http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/index.php?title=Errata_for_%22The_D_Programming_Language%22_book
Luckily the cached version works fine:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nIyQeOaM1hAJ:erdani.com/tdpl/errata/index.php%3Ftitle%3DErrata_for_%2522Th
== Quote from sybrandy (sybra...@gmail.com)'s article
> Not sure if this is what's used by an Appender, but this seems like a
> cool data structure:
> http://ahmadsoft.org/ropes/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_%28computer_science%29
> It's not good for indexing, but concatenation is an O(1) op
On 23/07/2010 21:54, Don wrote:
I completely agree that there will always be opportunities for CTFE
which will be missed unless you allow the compile time to become
arbitrarily long.
Which is why ultimately it should be up to the programmer to decide.
There should be a way to force the compile
Not sure if this is what's used by an Appender, but this seems like a
cool data structure:
http://ahmadsoft.org/ropes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_%28computer_science%29
It's not good for indexing, but concatenation is an O(1) operation, so
using it when you have to do a lot of appendin
Oops, guess I should have waited until after my nap with posting :)
You could nest the with statements, but then it's getting more verbose.
Didn't see that. Now it's my turn for a nap :)
Dnia 15-07-2010 o 22:55:04 torhu napisał(a):
On 15.07.2010 17:42, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from torhu (n...@spam.invalid)'s article
In case the answer is no, that example of yours is the perfect
opportunity to dust off the almost-forgotten with statement :)
with (Histogram(someData, 10)) {
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
While running the semantic on each function body, the compiler could
fairly easily check to see if the function is CTFEable. (The main
complication is that it has to guess about how many iterations are
performed
Dnia 15-07-2010 o 21:52:56 Robert Jacques napisał(a):
I've run into this before, with other compile-time tests such as
isAssociativeArray. Often, the real bug is the tests themselves are too
permissive.
Yes. I think isSomeRange should check that pop(Front|Back) returns void.
opDispatch
Dnia 13-07-2010 o 06:38:55 Andrei Alexandrescu
napisał(a):
I've just had an idea that is so dark and devious, I was almost afraid
to try it. But it works like a charm. Consider:
T * getNext(R, E)(ref R range,
ref E store = *(cast(E*) alloca(E.sizeof))
{
...
}
With th
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
While running the semantic on each function body, the compiler
could fairly easily check to see if the function is CTFEable. (The
main complication is that it has to guess about how man
Dnia 14-07-2010 o 13:32:44 Alix Pexton
napisał(a):
DuplexRange.vote++;
++vote
And it's already used for with similar meaning:
...can communicate with one another in both directions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_(telecommunications)
Tomek
Graham St Jack wrote:
> Priority inheritance chaining goes like this:
>
> Thread low locks mutex A, then mutex B
>
> Thread high tries to lock mutex B, elevating low's priority to high's so
> that high can get the mutex quickly.
>
> When thread low releases mutex B (letting high get it), the OS
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:48:11 -0400, Sean Kelly
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
What I find odd is that libdruntime.a is in the lib subdir even though
it's never used.
This is largely a historical artifact, though I do still sometimes link
druntime explicitly to test without Phobos.
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
> What I find odd is that libdruntime.a is in the lib subdir even though
> it's never used.
This is largely a historical artifact, though I do still sometimes link
druntime explicitly to test without Phobos.
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
While running the semantic on each function body, the compiler could
fairly easily check to see if the function is CTFEable. (The main
complication is that it has to guess about how many iterations are
performed
Lars T. Kyllingstad, el 23 de julio a las 12:39 me escribiste:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:50:08 -0400, Michel Fortin wrote:
>
> > When manually calling the linker, which libraries should be linked with
> > a d object file? If I run dmd with the -v option on Mac OS X, I notice
> > dmd issues the foll
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:50:08 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
When manually calling the linker, which libraries should be linked with
a d object file? If I run dmd with the -v option on Mac OS X, I notice
dmd issues the following linker command:
gcc test.o -o test -m32 -Xlinker
-L/Library/C
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:50:08 -0400, Michel Fortin wrote:
> When manually calling the linker, which libraries should be linked with
> a d object file? If I run dmd with the -v option on Mac OS X, I notice
> dmd issues the following linker command:
>
> gcc test.o -o test -m32 -Xlinker
> -L/Library/
When manually calling the linker, which libraries should be linked with
a d object file? If I run dmd with the -v option on Mac OS X, I notice
dmd issues the following linker command:
gcc test.o -o test -m32 -Xlinker
-L/Library/Compilers/dmd2/osx/bin/../lib -lphobos2 -lpthread -lm
which incl
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
While running the semantic on each function body, the compiler could
fairly easily check to see if the function is CTFEable. (The main
complication is that it has to guess about how many iterations are
performed in loops). Then, when
33 matches
Mail list logo
