On 2012-05-07 23:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
You mean the setter?
Yes.
Having a getter property function return by ref does allow you to use a
property exactly as you would a variable, because you're operating on the ref
that's returned. It also makes the property function nigh-on-useless, b
On 2012-05-07 22:37, deadalnix wrote:
This won't work anyway. We are talking about language grammar here. If
made expression, statement would be of type void. Just like assert is.
Says who? :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Oops, copy/paste error. :(
I'll check it, when I get back home.
--
Paulo
"Andre Tampubolon" wrote in message news:joa0lq$1t2k$1...@digitalmars.com...
Interesting reading.
I took a look at page 23, and didn't find the mention of C.
Maybe I didn't read carefully?
On 5/8/2012 3:34 AM, Paulo Pin
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.408.1336451614.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> I think that it makes sense to have flags for enabling certain types of
> warnings. The programmer can then choose to enable warnings for the things
> that that they want to warn about (be it
On 05/07/2012 03:22 AM, Andrew Wiley wrote:
I had some problems with floats being default initialized to NaN.
That's still correct behavior for C, actually. Using an uninitialized
variable in C results in undefined behavior, so D still complies with C
requirements when it initializes floats t
On Monday, May 07, 2012 23:56:40 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
> news:mailman.407.1336445190.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> > On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 04:21:06 bearophile wrote:
> >> Jonathan M Davis:
> >> > A good programmer will never leave _any_ warning
"James Miller" wrote in message
news:tsqxxnxrqfcfyvxmp...@forum.dlang.org...
> On Sunday, 6 May 2012 at 22:50:56 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Sunday, 6 May 2012 at 22:42:21 UTC, James Miller wrote:
>>> I think FUU is the most appropriate sentiment here.
>>
>> Wait till you try using
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.407.1336445190.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 04:21:06 bearophile wrote:
>> Jonathan M Davis:
>> > A good programmer will never leave _any_ warnings in committed
>> > code.
>>
>> Sometimes warnings are wrong, the co
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.406.1336442026.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> And -w is _completely_ unique AFAIK.
No, -w is literally the same as "Treat warnings as errors", which many
compilers have (esp. C/C++). DMD is just unique in *calling* it "Warnings"
instea
On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 04:21:06 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > A good programmer will never leave _any_ warnings in committed
> > code.
>
> Sometimes warnings are wrong, the compiler is not perfect.
> If the compiler is certain there is a mistake in the code, then
> generating an erro
Interesting reading.
I took a look at page 23, and didn't find the mention of C.
Maybe I didn't read carefully?
On 5/8/2012 3:34 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems I have to excuse myself. I could not find anything
> from Adele Goldberg.
>
> So my statement is false. Most likely I ended u
Jonathan M Davis:
A good programmer will never leave _any_ warnings in committed
code.
Sometimes warnings are wrong, the compiler is not perfect.
If the compiler is certain there is a mistake in the code, then
generating an error is better. Bugs are probabilistic.
Good lints don't have just "
On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 01:25:54 bearophile wrote:
> They are discussing about having -Wall on default in GCC 4.8:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/msg00087.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/threads.html#00092
>
> In D.learn I've seen plenty of people not use -wi (or -w) in D
> progr
"bearophile" wrote in message
news:rxwrviokohajqsmkb...@forum.dlang.org...
> They are discussing about having -Wall on default in GCC 4.8:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/msg00087.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/threads.html#00092
>
> In D.learn I've seen plenty of people not use -
On 5/7/2012 12:08 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
Wasn't there an allocator mechanism under development for phobos? I
remember there was a StackAllocator, that can span for arbitrary
scopes. What's up with that?
I wrote one. It's at https://github.com/dsimcha/TempAlloc . It hasn't
been accepted t
Posted pull request:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/573
Kenji Hara
2012/5/7 Denis Shelomovskij :
> 07.05.2012 11:39, kenji hara написал:
>
>> In prev thread, I have posted a proposal, but it didn't posted to
>> newsgroup, I don't know why.
>> I re-post my proposal.
>>
>> --
http://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/tbouj/zerobugs_modular_debugger_for_ccd_including_gui/
Alex Rønne Petersen:
I think individual options to turn specific warnings off will
complicate things too much. What I think we should do is make
-wi the default and make an option that is just the inverse.
Right, that's what I meant, a single switch to disable all
warnings.
Bye,
bearophile
On May 7, 2012 7:33 PM, "Alex Rønne Petersen" wrote:
> (I mean, we're D, not C; we don't have over 9000 warning variants).
>
> --
> - Alex
Yet.
On 08-05-2012 01:25, bearophile wrote:
They are discussing about having -Wall on default in GCC 4.8:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/msg00087.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/threads.html#00092
In D.learn I've seen plenty of people not use -wi (or -w) in D
programming, and this has caus
They are discussing about having -Wall on default in GCC 4.8:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/msg00087.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/threads.html#00092
In D.learn I've seen plenty of people not use -wi (or -w) in D
programming, and this has caused some troubles.
So what do you thin
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 21:07:15 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I guess I don't really understand that. Who is responsible for
cleaning up your class instance? The way I was understanding
your description, I thought it was the C window runtime calling
a callback you provide to it. Why do
On 7 May 2012 23:43, Artur Skawina wrote:
> On 05/08/12 00:32, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 7 May 2012 23:23, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 2012-05-07 21:53, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> How do you overload the operator for a property? For example:
>>>
>>> It can of course be done [1], but i
On 05/08/12 00:32, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 7 May 2012 23:23, Artur Skawina wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-07 21:53, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
How do you overload the operator for a property? For example:
>>
>> It can of course be done [1], but i think the question was whether the
>> compiler sho
On 7 May 2012 23:23, Artur Skawina wrote:
>> On 2012-05-07 21:53, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> How do you overload the operator for a property? For example:
>
> It can of course be done [1], but i think the question was whether the
> compiler should do the obvious rewrite from 'prop() |= 2'
Yes! I really want it! There are tons of instances when a heap
allocation is done instead of stack allocation because of dynamic size
alone. If its lifetime is limited by a scope (any scope) - it doesn't
belong on the heap!
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:07 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> Le 07/05/2012 13:58, G
> On 2012-05-07 21:53, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> How do you overload the operator for a property? For example:
It can of course be done [1], but i think the question was whether the
compiler should do the obvious rewrite from 'prop() |= 2' to 'prop(prop()|2)'.
Unconditionally, as not doing
Le 07/05/2012 13:58, Gor Gyolchanyan a écrit :
I'm working on dynamic memory layout manager. Simply put, it will
allow one to create and use struct types at run-time.
Normally, you create a struct at compile-time type by specifying an
ordered list of fields, each with its own type (basically a si
On Monday, May 07, 2012 23:41:33 Chris Cain wrote:
> On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 21:34:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > You mean the setter?
> >
> > Having a getter property function return by ref does allow you
> > to use a
> > property exactly as you would a variable, because you're
> > operatin
Am 07.05.2012 15:27, schrieb Paulo Pinto:
I like the idea, need to check what information I could provide.
Wirth's books about Oberon also provide similar information.
--
Paulo
"dennis luehring" wrote in message news:jo85t1$1n9b$1...@digitalmars.com...
Am 07.05.2012 07:53, schrieb Paulo Pinto
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 20:20:34 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Yeah, but mixins are so hacky.
They're like C macros, basically.
I'd have to say that C macros have many, _many_ more pitfalls
than mixins.
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 21:34:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
You mean the setter?
Having a getter property function return by ref does allow you
to use a
property exactly as you would a variable, because you're
operating on the ref
that's returned. It also makes the property function
nigh-o
On Monday, May 07, 2012 23:14:36 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-05-07 22:16, Michael wrote:
> > import std.stdio;
> >
> > int pro = 1;
> >
> > @property ref auto prop()
> > {
> >
> >return pro;
> >
> > }
> >
> > @property void prop(int value)
> > {
> >
> >pro = value;
> >
>
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 20:20:34 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 16:52:18 UTC, Arne wrote:
I think you'd need to modify the compiler for this, since
alloca is 'magical'.
wouldn't mixin's be a solution, one can inject an alloca to
the current scope, and then call the constructor.
On 2012-05-07 22:16, Michael wrote:
import std.stdio;
int pro = 1;
@property ref auto prop()
{
return pro;
}
@property void prop(int value)
{
pro = value;
}
void main()
{
writeln(prop |= 2);
}
You're bypassing the getter.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2012-05-07 21:53, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
How do you overload the operator for a property? For example:
Hm, I didn't think that one through :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Mon, 07 May 2012 16:15:54 -0400, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:43:42 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:05:20 -0400, Mehrdad
wrote:
Why doesn't this compile?
@property int foo() { return 1; }
@property void foo(int v) { }
void main()
{
foo |=
Definitely a lot more code, but maybe something like this would
work for this problem:
https://gist.github.com/c65e2cc6011d7887efcd
On Mon, 07 May 2012 16:09:06 -0400, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 19:39:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm just asking if I can call the constructor manually, because
(like I wrote in my first post...) sometimes the C code you're
interoperating with takes control away from you,
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jens Mueller" wrote in message
> news:mailman.391.1336410464.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > from my understanding UFCS is supposed to work with operator overloading.
> > I.e.
> > in the following a + b should work
> >
> > struct Foo {}
> >
> > Foo
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 19:23:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/7/2012 12:07 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
However, I think these examples are misleading and do not
prove the point. It
shows IMO more that you are better off declaring the type on
the left if your
code depends on it always st
Still, not having non-member operator overloads is very bothersome.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
> "Jens Mueller" wrote in message
> news:mailman.391.1336410464.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> from my understanding UFCS is supposed to work with operat
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 05:54:04 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, May 07, 2012 06:49:00 Russel Winder wrote:
Any language with which the programmer has to develop their
own set implementation is sadly lacking.
It is true that set can be implemented using a map, but this
should be se
On Saturday, May 05, 2012 05:50:26 Era Scarecrow wrote:
Hmm maybe it should have a preference for Lvalue vs Rvalue...
So... Walter or Andrei?
1. no match
2. match with implicit conversions (Lvalue required)
3. match with conversion to const (Lvalue required)
4. match with implicit con
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 20:25:35 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:48:22 -0400, Mehrdad
wrote:
I'm looking at this:
m += 5; // ok
m = m + 5; // error
And thinking, hm.. this is no good :)
Yeah, that means they were implemented poorly. :P
It should've been an error fo
"deadalnix" wrote in message
news:jo9be0$mgh$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> This won't work anyway. We are talking about language grammar here. If
> made expression, statement would be of type void. Just like assert is.
>
> The question is why assert is an expression ? Why not other statement
> do
"Jens Mueller" wrote in message
news:mailman.391.1336410464.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> Hi,
>
> from my understanding UFCS is supposed to work with operator overloading.
> I.e.
> in the following a + b should work
>
> struct Foo {}
>
> Foo opBinary(string op)(Foo lhs, Foo rhs) if (op
Hi,
it seems I have to excuse myself. I could not find anything
from Adele Goldberg.
So my statement is false. Most likely I ended up confusing
Fran Allen's interview in Coders at Work, with some nonsense
in my head.
Still, I leave here a few links I manage to find from Fran Allen.
Some remark
Le 07/05/2012 22:27, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jo98d1$frl$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 2012-05-07 19:06, deadalnix wrote:
Hi,
Working on D I noticed that some statement, notably assert, are
expression of type void. Why not all statement (that are not expre
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jo98d1$frl$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2012-05-07 19:06, deadalnix wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Working on D I noticed that some statement, notably assert, are
>> expression of type void. Why not all statement (that are not expression
>> already) are expression ?
>
On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:48:22 -0400, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 19:29:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think it was more that the whole concept was flawed -- typedef int
myint never really did exactly what you wanted it to.
For example:
myint m = 1; // ok
m += 5; // ok
m =
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 16:52:18 UTC, Arne wrote:
I think you'd need to modify the compiler for this, since
alloca is 'magical'.
wouldn't mixin's be a solution, one can inject an alloca to the
current scope, and then call the constructor...
Yeah, but mixins are so hacky.
They're like C macr
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 02:05:21 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Why doesn't this compile?
@property int foo() { return 1; }
@property void foo(int v) { }
void main()
{
foo |= 2;
}
import std.stdio;
int pro = 1;
@property ref auto prop()
{
return pro;
}
@property void prop(int value)
{
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 20:16:27 UTC, Michael wrote:
No?
No.
Remove "@property void prop(int value)" and see what happens.
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:43:42 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:05:20 -0400, Mehrdad
wrote:
Why doesn't this compile?
@property int foo() { return 1; }
@property void foo(int v) { }
void main()
{
foo |= 2;
}
It's like this in C#.
Um, I to differ...
This
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 19:39:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm just asking if I can call the constructor manually, because
(like I wrote in my first post...) sometimes the C code you're
interoperating with takes control away from you, and just
calls a
callback on your behalf when constr
On 2012-05-07 09:28, Mehrdad wrote:
Is this something that actually modifies the 'new' operator, or is it
just a separate factory function that my code would need to switch to
using?
This does not modify the new-operator. "_d_newclass" is actually the
runtime function that is called by the co
On 2012-05-07 21:09, Mehrdad wrote:
Oh, and ditto with the destructor: I need to be able to call the
destructor manually, because the C does that inside a callback on my
behalf.
About the destructor, have a look at how "clear" is implemented, it's
supposed to replace "delete". Don't remember w
On 2012-05-07 11:18, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 07:28:18 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Is this something that actually modifies the 'new' operator, or is it
just a separate factory function that my code would need to switch to
using?
Doing it without a separate factory function (and
On 2012-05-07 18:01, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 09:18:11 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
Doing it without a separate factory function (and maybe disabling new
along with it by protecting the constructor) is not possible in D.
Okay that answers my question then.
No, have a look at t
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 19:29:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Seriously though, I get what you are saying. Fortunately, we
have a very significant team working on phobos (I think more
than a dozen people have commit rights), so the situation for
"grr... phobos really should do *this*, but
On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:35:35 -0400, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-05-07 14:43, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It's like this in C#.
I can't decide whether I like it better in D or C#. Clearly the compiler
lowering of foo |= 2 to foo = foo | 2 would be benficial in terms of
less code to write.
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 19:29:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think it was more that the whole concept was flawed --
typedef int myint never really did exactly what you wanted it
to.
For example:
myint m = 1; // ok
m += 5; // ok
m = m + 5; // error?
It's definitely an error, because
On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:09:34 -0400, Mehrdad wrote:
Oh, and ditto with the destructor: I need to be able to call the
destructor manually, because the C does that inside a callback on my
behalf.
You definitely can do this. I think it's just __dtor. But I'm not sure if
that calls the whole
On 2012-05-07 17:41, Pierre LeMoine wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:36:18 UTC, Roald Ribe wrote:
If you are interested in getting results rather than reinventing the
wheel,
I would advice you to have a look at the openwatcom.org wlink, and the
forked jwlink as a starting point. The linker is
On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:08:16 -0400, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 17:04:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Not really, but then again, if you are not placing the class into the
GC heap, who cares? You have to manually delete anyways, just use your
specialized 'delete' function i
On 2012-05-07 19:06, deadalnix wrote:
Hi,
Working on D I noticed that some statement, notably assert, are
expression of type void. Why not all statement (that are not expression
already) are expression ?
I would like that as well.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2012-05-07 20:13, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:21:54PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what do students learn in modern CS courses.
[...]
Way too much theory and almost no practical applications. At least, that
was my experience when I was in college. It gets
On 2012-05-07 14:43, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It's like this in C#.
I can't decide whether I like it better in D or C#. Clearly the compiler
lowering of foo |= 2 to foo = foo | 2 would be benficial in terms of
less code to write.
But I also like having control over how properties can implem
On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:08:33 -0400, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 17:17:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Nothing in this whole thread seems to be very useful. I don't know how
else to answer your post except -- sorry, we're not going to change it.
Okay.
Though you'd be a lot
On 5/7/2012 12:07 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
However, I think these examples are misleading and do not prove the point. It
shows IMO more that you are better off declaring the type on the left if your
code depends on it always staying the same.
i.e. this does not have that problem:
real r
Oh, and ditto with the destructor: I need to be able to call the
destructor manually, because the C does that inside a callback on
my behalf.
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 19:08:18 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
No, I *am* placing it on the heap.
I'm just asking if I can call the constructor manually, becaus
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 17:04:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Not really, but then again, if you are not placing the class
into the GC heap, who cares? You have to manually delete
anyways, just use your specialized 'delete' function instead of
delete.
-Steve
No, I *am* placing it on t
On Mon, 07 May 2012 13:34:49 -0400, Andrew Wiley
wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
I agree that's the case with the current object/linker model. Something
that puts inferred properties into the object file needs a new model,
one
which does not blindly l
On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:11:34 -0400, Arne wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:34:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:02:28 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Or maybe you initially have written:
auto r = 1.1L;
And later you want to change the number to 1.0 and you fix it like
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:34:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:02:28 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Or maybe you initially have written:
auto r = 1.1L;
And later you want to change the number to 1.0 and you fix it
like this:
auto r = 1L;
Now you have a little bug.
Or
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:21:54PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[...]
> I have spent a huge time in the university learning about compiler
> development, reading old books and papers from the early computing
> days.
>
> So in a general way, and not directed to you now, I saddens me that a
> great par
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 17:17:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Nothing in this whole thread seems to be very useful. I don't
know how else to answer your post except -- sorry, we're not
going to change it.
Okay.
Though you'd be a lot more convincing if you could give an
example of how t
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:59:24 -0400, Andrew Wiley
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Steven Schveighoffer > >wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 09:27:32 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen <
>>>
>>> That's exactly what storing the int
Am 07.05.2012 15:30, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 09:22:05 -0400, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
This just confirms what I saw yesterday on a presentation.
Many developers re-invent the wheel, or jump to the fad technology of the
year, because they don't have the knowledge of old alr
On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:59:24 -0400, Andrew Wiley
wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 09:27:32 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen <
That's exactly what storing the interface in the object file does. You
don't need the source because the object fil
On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:10:20 -0400, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:18:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, they are the same function. size_t is aliased to uint. What *you*
want size_t to mean is not what it is, it's an alias to the word-sized
unsigned integer on a platform
On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:57:22 -0400, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 10:15:56 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
What is your objective? What are you trying to achieve?
Did you read my first post? I already explained what this would be used
for.
Sure, you can do it with factories, but yo
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 09:27:32 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen <
> xtzgzo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 07-05-2012 14:50, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 07:41:43 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07-05-2
Hi,
from my understanding UFCS is supposed to work with operator overloading. I.e.
in the following a + b should work
struct Foo {}
Foo opBinary(string op)(Foo lhs, Foo rhs) if (op == "+")
{
return Foo.init;
}
unittest
{
Foo a, b;
a + b; // fails to compile
}
Is UFCS supposed to wo
Hi,
Working on D I noticed that some statement, notably assert, are
expression of type void. Why not all statement (that are not expression
already) are expression ?
That won't do. This is way too ugly, considering, that it needs to be
heavily used in user code. I'm thinking an inline ASM solution, but
can't figure out when to deallocate.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Arne wrote:
> On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 16:03:15 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, 7 May
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 16:03:15 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 13:36:02 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
Basically I want what alloca does, but instead of considering
the constructor's scope, I want it to hand to the constructor
call's enclosing scope.
I think you'd need to modify
On 5/7/12 10:25 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 03/05/2012 15:50, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Just letting you all know we're working on the frustrating and
increasingly frequent "Load at xx.xx, try again later" errors when
reading this forum through NNTP. They are caused by a significant growth
sp
No idea, sorry. :\
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 16:08:42 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
Wasn't there an allocator mechanism under development for
phobos? I
remember there was a StackAllocator, that can span for arbitrary
scopes. What's up with that?
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Mehrdad
wrote:
O
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:18:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, they are the same function. size_t is aliased to uint.
What *you* want size_t to mean is not what it is, it's an alias
to the word-sized unsigned integer on a platform. Get used to
it, use another type if you don't want i
Wasn't there an allocator mechanism under development for phobos? I
remember there was a StackAllocator, that can span for arbitrary
scopes. What's up with that?
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 13:36:02 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>>
>> Basically I want w
I'd decrease ESP to allocate my space, but the problem arises when I
try to determine when should I increase it back where it was. Any
suggestions on how to do this using asm?
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 13:36:02 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>>
>> Basi
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 13:36:02 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
Basically I want what alloca does, but instead of considering
the constructor's scope, I want it to hand to the constructor
call's enclosing scope.
I think you'd need to modify the compiler for this, since alloca
is 'magical'.
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 09:18:11 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
Doing it without a separate factory function (and maybe
disabling new along with it by protecting the constructor) is
not possible in D.
Okay that answers my question then.
However, I don't quite see what it would gain you in the
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 10:15:56 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
What is your objective? What are you trying to achieve?
Did you read my first post? I already explained what this would
be used for.
Sure, you can do it with factories, but you can't factory-ize
"delete", can you?
On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:36:18 UTC, Roald Ribe wrote:
If you are interested in getting results rather than
reinventing the wheel,
I would advice you to have a look at the openwatcom.org wlink,
and the
forked jwlink as a starting point. The linker is open source,
written in
C and has user do
On 03/05/2012 15:50, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Just letting you all know we're working on the frustrating and
increasingly frequent "Load at xx.xx, try again later" errors when
reading this forum through NNTP. They are caused by a significant growth
spurt in newsgroup readership that occurred in
On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 23:23 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> There are multiple ways to implement a set or a map. If a programmer knows
> their data structures (as one would hope that they would), then they know the
> difference between a hash set and a tree set (or hash map and tree map), and
On Mon, 07 May 2012 09:27:32 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 07-05-2012 14:50, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 07:41:43 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 07-05-2012 13:21, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:30:05 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
