On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:55:27 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 14:08:56 UTC, Patric Dexheimer wrote:
Fresh install of GDC. (tried with 32x ad 32_64x)
Where did you get the GDC executable from? The GDC project
doesn't currently offer any official builds that
On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 23:55:54 UTC, rjframe wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:08:56 +, Patric Dexheimer wrote:
Fresh install of GDC. (tried with 32x ad 32_64x)
GDC: 6.3.0 DUB: 1.3.0
dub run --build=release --arch=x86 --compiler=gdc
(...)
Running .\main Failed to spawn new process (%1
Fresh install of GDC. (tried with 32x ad 32_64x)
GDC: 6.3.0
DUB: 1.3.0
dub run --build=release --arch=x86 --compiler=gdc
(...)
Running .\main
Failed to spawn new process (%1 is not a valid win32 application)
On Monday, 5 June 2017 at 13:16:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Patric Dexheimer wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Labels-as-Values.html
Is possible to use Label as Values in D?
Or there is a way to do dynamic goto statements?
Ps: This is out of curiosity / performance reasons. I know the
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Labels-as-Values.html
Is possible to use Label as Values in D?
Or there is a way to do dynamic goto statements?
Ps: This is out of curiosity / performance reasons. I know the
potential of bad design / ugly code ;)
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 13:26:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 13:13:06 UTC, Patric Dexheimer
wrote:
Function overloads coming from mixin templates are not being
detected ?
A name being present in the struct means that name is NOT
pulled from the mixin template.
1)
struct T{
void f1(){writeln("default f1");}
void f1(int x){writeln("overload f1");}
}
//main
T().f1();
T().f1(1);
//compiles and output as expected.
2)
mixin template add_function(){
void f1(){writeln("default f1");}
}
struct T{
mixin add_function;
void f1(int
On Friday, 5 May 2017 at 13:19:03 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2017 at 13:05:35 UTC, Patric Dexheimer wrote:
[...]
You should never use static opCall. They are ambiguous with
non-static opCall as well as with constructors. It is a buggy
mess that should never have been in the
struct Base(T){
static T opCall(Args...)( Args args ){
writeln(args);
writeln("opCall");
T t;
return t;
}
}
struct Data{
Base!Data b;
alias b this;
}
void main()
{
// Expected: opCall
GC it´s not only about some performance issues that some people
may encounter on D, but it its a marketing problem as well.
"D is a systems programming language with..." GC(!?).
Most people that are interest in D came from c/c++ or other
backgrounds without GC or hearing their entire life
On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 09:35:39 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
And the simple clarity of the syntax really helps compared to,
say, C++. It's much easier to write and much easier to read
and understand. So, once again, it's easier to move fast.
As a D beginner I have to say that
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 12:10:55 UTC, Andrey wrote:
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:09:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
what can be done, tho, is article (or series of articles)
describing what exactly druntime is, how it is compared to
libc and libc++, why it doesn't hurt at all, how to do
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 00:47:00 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 00:28:36 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
Please don't post non-d.
it slipped accidentally, sorry. ;-)
for OP: `uint[2] a = [42, 69];` is the correct syntax.
"uint[$] a = [42, 69];"
haha for a moment I
There isn't a official D youtube channel right?
Would be be nice to have all the D related videos spread on
youtube centralized in one place :)
On Friday, 28 October 2016 at 09:29:41 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 28 October 2016 at 01:25:55 UTC, Kirill Kryukov
wrote:
You shoot yourself in a tuple containing your foot, boot and
sock.
Cannot implicitly convert expression (map(shoot(foot))) of type
MapResult to
S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];
Nice, did´n knew that it worked.
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 21:41:16 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there
is milion way how to initialize something, it is really hard to
understand and inconsistent
I never really felt
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 19:20:25 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Dne 21.10.2016 v 20:49 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d
napsal(a):
Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance
of this on D?
No (I hope so)
There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
Can
Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance of
this on D?
(one of the few things that i miss from c++)
There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used
structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes)
I
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 21:07:17 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 20:52:09 UTC, Patric Dexheimer
wrote:
So for now my idea is to brute force the numbers of arguments
with 'compiles' trait or trying to get the sourcecode somehow.
depending on source code form (even if
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 18:01:25 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 10/13/2016 07:19 AM, Patric Dexheimer wrote:
There is a way to capture the return type/parameters of a
templated
function like:
void add(T)(T t){}
Parameters!add;
Yes, i know that the template don´t have any type until
There is a way to capture the return type/parameters of a
templated function like:
void add(T)(T t){}
Parameters!add;
Yes, i know that the template don´t have any type until
explicitly coded like:
Parameters!(add!int);
Or another solution like getting the string function declaration
will
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 05:53:06 UTC, Suliman wrote:
Please, add Sublime support
+1 for Sublime Support :)
On Thursday, 6 October 2016 at 03:48:22 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Thursday, 6 October 2016 at 03:05:18 UTC, Patric Dexheimer
wrote:
[...]
There's a difference between initialization and assignment.
[...]
On Thursday, 6 October 2016 at 03:48:22 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Thursday, 6
On Thursday, 6 October 2016 at 02:09:44 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 6 October 2016 at 01:23:35 UTC, Patric Dexheimer
wrote:
Why?
Because you'd be overwriting that immutable member. Structs
just put structure around their contents, but it doesn't change
their nature. That struct
struct Test{
immutable size_t id;
}
Test[string] dict;
Test[] array;
void main(){
array~=Test(1);//work
dict["teste"] = Test(1); //fail ??
}
"Error: cannot modify struct dict["teste"] Test with immutable
members"
Why?
LLVM D compiler (1a7070): based on DMD v2.071.2-b2 and LLVM
3.9.0git-fbbabf3
command: dub run --build=release --arch=x86_64
--compiler=D:/ldc/bin/ldc2.exe
Output:
Performing "release" build using D:/ldc/bin/ldc2.exe for x86_64.
derelict-util 2.0.6: building configuration "library"...
Error:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 at 00:57:11 UTC, Alex Parrill wrote:
Also note that Vibe.d, the largest fiber-based framework D has
to offer, is capable of running several coroutines in parallel
on multiple threads, meaning you must use the same level of
synchronization as if you were using threads.
I learned about Fibers on D, and now i´m starting to read about
it (Threads/Fibers/Coroutines) etc.
But when i try to make something usefull with it i just fail to
see the real advantage over a normal structured programming
without it.
Can someone show some code with
28 matches
Mail list logo
