On 08/24/2011 11:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:15:54 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2011-08-24 11:17:08 +, "Steven Schveighoffer"
said:
It's actually possible, but ugly:
auto ptr = (new int[10][](1)).ptr;
One really interesting thing to note -- the compiler a
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:15:54 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2011-08-24 11:17:08 +, "Steven Schveighoffer"
said:
It's actually possible, but ugly:
auto ptr = (new int[10][](1)).ptr;
One really interesting thing to note -- the compiler actually turns
struct allocations into array-
On 2011-08-24 11:17:08 +, "Steven Schveighoffer"
said:
It's actually possible, but ugly:
auto ptr = (new int[10][](1)).ptr;
One really interesting thing to note -- the compiler actually turns
struct allocations into array-of-one allocations in the runtime. So
this is likely what the
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:45:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 8/23/11 6:15 AM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
foobar:
you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
I'd suggest to simplify into only two cases.
// 1) T.INIT - as y
On 8/23/11 12:32 PM, Don wrote:
foobar wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
On 8/23/11 6:15 AM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
foobar:
you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
I'd sugg
Don wrote:
> Please note that moving AAs from built-in to library was little
> short of a disaster, as far as the compiler is concerned.
Amen. The library AAs *still* give me trouble from time to time -
been the most buggy thing I've used in D.
foobar wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
On 8/23/11 6:15 AM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
foobar:
you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
I'd suggest to simplify into only two cas
On 8/23/11 8:11 AM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
On 8/23/11 6:15 AM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
foobar:
you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
I'd suggest to simpli
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:45:33 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 8/23/11 6:15 AM, foobar wrote:
>> == Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
>>> foobar:
you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated. I'd suggest
to simplify into only two cases.
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> I hate that, too. Walter hates it, too, but we both reckon it's too late
> now to change things.
With a soft deprecation path I think you will be able to deprecate and remove
it in a year.
Bye,
bearophile
On 08/23/2011 05:11 PM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
On 8/23/11 6:15 AM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
foobar:
you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
I'd suggest to si
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> On 8/23/11 6:15 AM, foobar wrote:
> > == Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> >> foobar:
> >>> you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
> >>> I'd suggest to simplify into only two
== Quote from Timon Gehr (timon.g...@gmx.ch)'s article
> On 08/23/2011 03:15 PM, foobar wrote:
> > == Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> >> foobar:
> >>> you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
> >>> I'd suggest to simplify into only two cases.
> >>>
> >>
On 8/23/11 6:15 AM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
foobar:
you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
I'd suggest to simplify into only two cases.
// 1) T.INIT - as you suggested the dimension should be checked
auto foo = new int[][](
On 08/23/2011 03:15 PM, foobar wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
foobar:
you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
I'd suggest to simplify into only two cases.
// 1) T.INIT - as you suggested the dimension should be checked
auto foo = new int[
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> foobar:
> > you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
> > I'd suggest to simplify into only two cases.
> >
> > // 1) T.INIT - as you suggested the dimension should be checked
> > auto foo = new int[][](10, 20); // corre
foobar:
> you raise a valid concern but this looks too complicated.
> I'd suggest to simplify into only two cases.
>
> // 1) T.INIT - as you suggested the dimension should be checked
> auto foo = new int[][](10, 20); // correct
> auto foo1 = new int[][](10); // compilation error
Keep in mind tha
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> To create a nD dynamic array and initialize it to a constant value (different
from the init) you currently do something like this:
> auto mat = new bool[][](10, 20);
> foreach (ref row; mat)
> row[] = true;
> Currently this D code
18 matches
Mail list logo
