On 15/11/2010 12:27, Adrian Matoga wrote:
I wish you will be given a translation of the same quality, TDPL is
worth it.
What do you mean by this? You mean a Portuguese translation?
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
bearophile wrote:
Lutger Blijdestijn:
Actually the unix convention is to give exit code 0 as an indicator of
success, so there is feedback. It is very usable for scripting.
But currently something like that is not present in the D unittest system.
rdmd --main -unittest somemodule.d
add + commit is not a bad design at all. It is just design choice,
and it also about patch control system, that allows more logical
commit history and more precise control over VCS. It allows to code
all things you want and place into commit only part of your changes.
You even can stage part of
Looking pretty good so far!
Alexey Khmara wrote:
add + commit is not a bad design at all. It is just design choice,
and it also about patch control system, that allows more logical
commit history and more precise control over VCS. It allows to code
all things you want and place into commit only part of your changes.
You
On 11/17/10 10:32 PM, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
[…] you are not
forced into this model when you know you have only worked on a
single feature and want to commit it.
You are not forced to use the staging area with Git either (although
most of the developers I know do use it), it's just the
On 11/17/10 10:27 PM, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
[…]It might be possible to change the configuration so
that this won't happen, but the simple fact that this happens with
the *default* config does not fill me with confidence regarding data
integrity and Git...
This is not exactly true, at least
Nice work! Is it for D2 or D1? Or both?
--bb
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Fawzi Mohamed fa...@gmx.ch wrote:
I am happy to announce blip 0.5
http://dsource.org/projects/blip
why 0.5? because it works for me, but hopefully it will work for others
too, and 1.0 will be a release
On 11/18/10 1:12 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
Nice work! Is it for D2 or D1? Or both?
--bb
I hope you don't mind me answering, Fawzi:
Currently, it's D1 only.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:55:42 -0700, Rainer Deyke wrote:
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
that doesn't even address it.
I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same
line as 'if'.
On 11/17/10 12:00 AM, Jay Byrd wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:55:42 -0700, Rainer Deyke wrote:
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
that doesn't even address it.
I really don't see the problem with requiring
It *isn't* required. But if you don't put it there, *you get the wrong
result*.
You didn't mean that, did you?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
The problem pointed out can readily be fixed by requiring statements to
have at least one token. go has much more severe problems than that. And
there are plenty of bugs and mistakes in D, harder to fix, that could be
deemed deal-killers by someone with an axe to grind. It's not an
intellectually
It *isn't* required. But if you don't put it there, *you get the wrong
result*.
You didn't mean that, did you?
Oh you did! and i agree.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Kagamin schrieb:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
Honestly, leap seconds are complete stupidity with regards to computers. They
just complicate things.
I think, it's ok, computers work with nominal time and synchronize with world
as needed. Hardly you can catch a bug with leap seconds.
As long as
Rainer Deyke schrieb:
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
that doesn't even address it.
I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same
line as 'if'. It's something you learn once and
Daniel Gibson schrieb:
Rainer Deyke schrieb:
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
that doesn't even address it.
I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same
line as 'if'. It's
Daniel Gibson Wrote:
I think, it's ok, computers work with nominal time and synchronize with
world as needed. Hardly you can catch a bug with leap seconds.
As long as you're not Oracle and your enterprise clusterware crap reboots:
Kagamin schrieb:
Daniel Gibson Wrote:
I think, it's ok, computers work with nominal time and synchronize with world
as needed. Hardly you can catch a bug with leap seconds.
As long as you're not Oracle and your enterprise clusterware crap reboots:
That one point you made would be a
deal-killer for me (not that I'm close to using Go or anything, but no
need to invest any more time on it after that).
That was a good point and it's a deal-killer for me too.
It's too much similar to the Javascript object literal syntax
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:03:05 -0700
Rainer Deyke rain...@eldwood.com wrote:
Making functions weakly pure by default means that temporarily adding a
tiny debug printf to any function will require a shitload of cascading
'impure' annotations. I would consider that completely unacceptable.
I had accidentally written:
immutable pi = 4.0 * reduce ! ( a + b ) ( 0 , outputData ) * delta ;
the error message received was:
Error: template instance std.algorithm.reduce!(a +
b).reduce!(int,Map!(partialSum,Tuple!(int,int,double)[])) error instantiating
which isn't wrong, but neither is
Daniel Gibson Wrote:
Synchronization can fail if the code asserts that number of seconds is not
greater than 59 (Jonathan's lib does the same, I think). Is it the cause?
How are leap seconds handled on a computer anyway? Does the clock really
count
to 60 seconds (instead of 59) before
From wiki:
There was originally some controversy over whether the Unix time_t should be
signed or unsigned. If unsigned, its range in the future would be doubled,
postponing the 32-bit overflow (by 68 years). However, it would then be
incapable of representing times prior to 1970. Dennis
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:28:37 -0800
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
It has already been argued that I/O should be exempt (at least for debugging
purposes), and I think that that would could be acceptable for weakly pure
functions. But it's certainly true that as it stands, dealing
Hi,
I've written a small module for debugging on Posix systems.
It uses raise(SIGTRAP) and a custom errorHandlerType with
setAssertHandler. But setAssertHandler is deprecated.
Why is it deprecated? How should I do it instead?
I want to do it generally for Error and Exception. Don't know how yet.
Steven Schveighoffer:
It makes me think that this is going to be extremely confusing for a while,
because people are so used to pure being equated with a functional language,
so when they see a function is pure but takes mutable data, they will be
scratching their heads.
I agree, it's a
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:56:09 -0500, Jay Byrd jayb...@rebels.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:58:28 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:24:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 11/16/10 9:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 17
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:03:05 -0500, Rainer Deyke rain...@eldwood.com
wrote:
On 11/16/2010 21:53, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It makes me think that this is going to be extremely confusing for a
while, because people are so used to pure being equated with a
functional language, so when they
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
I think in general containers don't work across multiple threads unless
specifically designed to do that.
I'm making the assumption that you'd handle all the synchronization issues
yourself. When you need to update the
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:17:05 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
I think in general containers don't work across multiple threads unless
specifically designed to do that.
I'm making the assumption that you'd handle all
Am 17.11.2010 14:55, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
Being someone who likes the brace-on-its-own-line style
i++
greets
Matthias
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:ic03ui$gj...@digitalmars.com...
On 11/17/10 12:00 AM, Jay Byrd wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:55:42 -0700, Rainer Deyke wrote:
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
I think that we need a wrapper for containers that implements the shared
methods required and manually locks things in order to use them. Then you
apply this wrapper to any container type, and it's now a shared container.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:14:21 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
I think that we need a wrapper for containers that implements the shared
methods required and manually locks things in order to use them. Then
you
apply
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
There is specific code in array appending that locks a global lock when
appending to shared arrays. Appending to __gshared arrays from multiple
threads likely will not work in some cases though. I don't know how to
get around this, since the runtime is not
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:58:20 -0500, Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
There is specific code in array appending that locks a global lock when
appending to shared arrays. Appending to __gshared arrays from multiple
threads likely will not work in some
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
The issue is that if you append to such an array and it adds more pages in
place, the block length location will move. Since each thread caches its
own copy of the block info, one will be wrong and look at array data
thinking
atomicOp uses a CAS loop for the RMW operations.
Ignore my comment. I should have looked at the code in core.atomic
before commenting. I just had one test case with atomicOp!(+=) that
worked, and assumed that atomicOp!(+=) was implemented with lock xadd.
I'm thinking of exposing atomicStore
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 04:15:52 Kagamin wrote:
Daniel Gibson Wrote:
Synchronization can fail if the code asserts that number of seconds is
not greater than 59 (Jonathan's lib does the same, I think). Is it the
cause?
How are leap seconds handled on a computer anyway? Does
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 09:51:30 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 04:15:52 Kagamin wrote:
Daniel Gibson Wrote:
Synchronization can fail if the code asserts that number of seconds
is not greater than 59 (Jonathan's lib does the same, I think). Is
it the
Nick Sabalausky:
Sad as it may be, most people, and worse still, most programmers, have no
qualms about safety by convention.
This is an interesting topic, there is a lot to say about it. Bugs and errors
have many sources, and you need to balance different and sometimes opposed
needs to
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:09:11 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
The issue is that if you append to such an array and it adds more pages
in
place, the block length location will move. Since each thread caches
its
own
On 18/10/2010 19:45, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:36:57 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
...bury the hatch and...
Sorry, I can't let this one pass... bury the *hatchet* :)
This isn't Lost.
-Steve
LOOOL
Oh man, I miss that
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:09:11 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
The issue is that if you append to such an array and it adds more pages
in
place, the
On 11/11/2010 11:50, lurker wrote:
ruben niemann Wrote:
Diego Cano Lagneaux Wrote:
Well, I think a simple look at the real world is enough to agree that you
need several years of experience and good skills. Moreover, my personal
experience is that it's easier to get a job (and therefore the
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:58:55 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:09:11 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
The issue is that if
On 11/17/2010 03:26, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Rainer Deyke schrieb:
Let's say I see something like this in C/C++/D:
if(blah())
{
x++;
}
This is not my usual style, so I have to stop and think.
What about
if( (blah() || foo()) (x 42)
(baz.iDontKnowHowtoNameThisMethod() !is
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
This is how it looked on linux:
bash-2.05b# date
Thu Jan 1 00:59:58 CET 2009
bash-2.05b# date
Thu Jan 1 00:59:59 CET 2009
bash-2.05b# date
Thu Jan 1 00:59:60 CET 2009
bash-2.05b# date
Thu Jan 1 01:00:00 CET 2009
bash-2.05b# date
Thu Jan 1 01:00:01
On 11/17/2010 05:10, spir wrote:
Output in general, programmer feedback in particuliar, should simply
not be considered effect. It is transitory change to dedicated areas
of memory -- not state. Isn't this the sense of output, after all?
My debug output actually goes through my logging library
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 12:37:18 Kagamin wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
This is how it looked on linux:
bash-2.05b# date
Thu Jan 1 00:59:58 CET 2009
bash-2.05b# date
Thu Jan 1 00:59:59 CET 2009
bash-2.05b# date
Thu Jan 1 00:59:60 CET 2009
bash-2.05b# date
Thu
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
Latest: http://is.gd/gSwDv
You use QueryPerformanceCounter.
Is this code tested on Windows? MSDN doesn't specify what
QueryPerformanceCounter returns.
see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx
Matthias Pleh s...@alter.com wrote:
Am 17.11.2010 14:55, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
Being someone who likes the brace-on-its-own-line style
i++
Surely you mean:
i
++
;
--
Simen
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 13:44:32 Kagamin wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
Latest: http://is.gd/gSwDv
You use QueryPerformanceCounter.
Is this code tested on Windows? MSDN doesn't specify what
QueryPerformanceCounter returns. see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx
The article was written in 2004. A high precision event timer has been
incorporated in chipsets since 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Precision_Event_Timer
I hope were not basing decisions on support for NT4.0 :)
== Quote from Kagamin (s...@here.lot)'s article
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16:09:22 Todd VanderVeen wrote:
The article was written in 2004. A high precision event timer has been
incorporated in chipsets since 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Precision_Event_Timer
I hope were not basing decisions on support for NT4.0 :)
I'm
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
... (though in the case of adjusting for NTP, the internal stdTimes for the
SysTimes
would be off as well, while in the leap second case, they aren't).
- Jonathan M Davis
OK, all, thanks for answering that question, but my primary gripe was that the
current
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
It's probably common courtesy that should be preserved. I just committed
the fix prompted by Lutger (thanks).
Andrei
Thanks Andrei. When the next version is released I'll remove the temporary
findRex() function from my current code.
Steve ;=)
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
I'd have to study up on it to see whether there are any real problems with it.
Speaking in posix terms, performance counter is more like CLOCK_MONOTONIC and
using it as CLOCK_REALTIME is a dependency on undefined behavior.
It's difficult to find a suitable entry point in this thread, so I'll just
arbitrarily use here.
Various language libraries have flexible facilities for formatting date/time
values, maybe c#, and certainly PHP, whereby you can specify a format string,
something like %d'th %M %Y.
Is this a
Steve Teale Wrote:
So if I want to write a timed log entry, what's the recommendation?
I won't dare to use std.date.
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 21:35:03 Steve Teale wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
... (though in the case of adjusting for NTP, the internal stdTimes for the
SysTimes
would be off as well, while in the leap second case, they aren't).
- Jonathan M Davis
OK, all, thanks for
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 21:57:58 Steve Teale wrote:
It's difficult to find a suitable entry point in this thread, so I'll just
arbitrarily use here.
Various language libraries have flexible facilities for formatting
date/time values, maybe c#, and certainly PHP, whereby you can specify
DOLIVE дµ½:
Why do not you update it? GDC has been updated to dmd2.049 .
refuel, make an all out effort
thank you very much!
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 21:51:24 Kagamin wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
I'd have to study up on it to see whether there are any real problems
with it.
Speaking in posix terms, performance counter is more like CLOCK_MONOTONIC
and using it as CLOCK_REALTIME is a dependency on
void foo(char[] a) {}
void bar(char[][] b) {}
int main(string[] args)
{
char[4] a;
char[4][4] b;
foo(a);// OK: implicit convertion
bar(b);// Error: cannot implicitly convert
//char[4u][4u] to char[][]
}
what is the reason for the
Matthias Pleh s...@alter.com napisał(a):
void foo(char[] a) {}
void bar(char[][] b) {}
int main(string[] args)
{
char[4] a;
char[4][4] b;
foo(a);// OK: implicit convertion
bar(b);// Error: cannot implicitly convert
//char[4u][4u]
Matthias Pleh Wrote:
void foo(char[] a) {}
void bar(char[][] b) {}
int main(string[] args)
{
char[4] a;
char[4][4] b;
foo(a);// OK: implicit convertion
bar(b);// Error: cannot implicitly convert
//char[4u][4u] to char[][]
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:10:19 +0100
Matthias Pleh s...@alter.com wrote:
void foo(char[] a) {}
void bar(char[][] b) {}
int main(string[] args)
{
char[4] a;
char[4][4] b;
foo(a);// OK: implicit convertion
bar(b);// Error: cannot implicitly convert
Matthias Pleh:
So I solved it with:
void bar(char* buf, int width, int height)
Good old C :)
Most times this is not a good D solution :-(
This compiles (but it created a new instantiation of bar for each different
input matrix):
void bar(int N, int M)(int[N][M] buf) {}
void main() {
void bar(int N, int M)(ref int[N][M] buf) {}
But for a matrix this is often better:
void bar(int N, int M)(ref int[N][M] buf) {
Or even:
pure void bar(int N, int M)(ref const int[N][M] buf) {
Bye,
bearophile
Hi,
I'm currently using DMD v2.049 with phobos. I found an old discussion
about how toString should be designed and how it is supposed to work. As
the following code does not print out the number, I wonder what is the
current status of how to implement a toString function for a struct/class:
|
In C++, I tend to declare all local variables const when I know that they
aren't
going to need to be altered. I'd like to something similar in D. However, D has
both const and immutable. I can see clear differences in how const and
immutable
work with regards to function parameters and member
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 19:48:30 Matthias Walter wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently using DMD v2.049 with phobos. I found an old discussion
about how toString should be designed and how it is supposed to work. As
the following code does not print out the number, I wonder what is the
current
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 23:09:40 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
In C++, I tend to declare all local variables const when I know that they
aren't going to need to be altered. I'd like to something similar in D.
However, D has both const and immutable. I can see clear differences
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4864
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5229
Summary: Inaccurate parsing of floating-point literals
Product: D
Version: D1 D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3827
--- Comment #22 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2010-11-17 03:58:08 PST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
doesn't this solve that problem? a ~ (this ~ that)
It does. My point was that somebody might accidentally not add the brackets.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5229
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5219
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5230
Summary: ICE(tocsym.c) overriding a method that has an out
contract
Product: D
Version: D1 D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5230
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3031
--- Comment #2 from Lukasz Wrzosek luk.wrzo...@gmail.com 2010-11-17 12:12:50
PST ---
Created an attachment (id=817)
Fix for this bug.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2056
Bruno Medeiros bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3889
--- Comment #6 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-11-17
12:23:21 PST ---
compare
---
foo[]=(cast(Foo[])[])[]; //copy empty array
foo[]=(cast(Foo[])null)[]; //copy null slice
---
The first line has all 3 meanings of []
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #15 from Bruno Medeiros bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com 2010-11-17
12:24:40 PST ---
For the record, the same problem also occurs with pointer types:
B* ba=[new B()].ptr;
A* aa=ba;
*aa=new A;
(*ba).methodB(); // (*ba) is
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3889
--- Comment #7 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-11-17
12:26:41 PST ---
ps Huh, [] actually has 4 possible meanings, I forgot about either array
operation or full slice operator.
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5203
Matthias Pleh matthias.p...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|websites|installer
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5093
simon s.d.hamm...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #816 is|0 |1
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2056
--- Comment #3 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-11-17
14:21:51 PST ---
So this is a regression?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #16 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-17 15:13:10 PST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
I'm afraid, there's nothing to test at runtime,
Some runtime data info may be added, then. There is already some of it for
classes and modules.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5219
--- Comment #2 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-17 15:55:19 PST ---
This problem may be solved by a better profiler, or by an alternative to the
switch suggested in bug 5070
If this idea is bad then it may be closed.
--
Configure
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #18 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2010-11-17 16:57:33 PST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Really, the only question is whether you can get away with it with
some form of const, and I believe that the consensus on it in the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5231
Summary: BigInt lacks a normal toString()
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5219
nfx...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nfx...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5232
Summary: [patch] std.conv.to std.conv.roundTo report invalid
overflows for very large numbers
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5231
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
98 matches
Mail list logo
