On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:59:46 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Sorry, I misclicked a button and send the message preliminary.
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:16:40 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
A final option is to disable the copy constructor of such an unsafe
appender, but
Sorry, I misclicked a button and send the message preliminary.
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:16:40 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
A final option is to disable the copy constructor of such an unsafe
appender, but then you couldn't pass it around.
What do you think? If you think it's worth h
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:23:50 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
No, it doesn't use capacity, it uses length as a capacity instead:
void ensureCapacity(T)(ref T[] array, size_t minCapacity)
{
size_t capacity = array.length;
if (minCapacity < capacity) {
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:16:40 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:52:29 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
First I'd like to say that I don't really like (or rather use) Appender
because it always allocates (at least an internal Data instance) even
wh
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:52:29 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
First I'd like to say that I don't really like (or rather use) Appender
because it always allocates (at least an internal Data instance) even
when I provide my own buffer.
I mean, why would I use Appender if it st
irst I'd like to say that I don't really like (or rather use) Appender
because it always allocates (at least an internal Data instance) even when
I provide my own buffer.
I mean, why would I use Appender if it still allocates? Okay, you have to
store a reference to an internal representation
