On Friday 11 March 2011 21:40:36 %u wrote:
> >> I think pitfalls like this one (with the garbage collector, for example)
> >> should definitely be documented somewhere. I would imagine that quite a
> >> few people who try to set the length of an array
>
> won't realize that they can run out of mem
>> I think pitfalls like this one (with the garbage collector, for example)
>> should definitely be documented somewhere. I would imagine that quite a few
>> people who try to set the length of an array
won't realize that they can run out of memory this way, especially because it's
nondeterminis
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:15:42 +, %u wrote:
> I think pitfalls like this one (with the garbage collector, for example)
> should definitely be documented somewhere. I would imagine that quite a
> few people who try to set the length of an array won't realize that they
> can run out of memory this
Huh, interesting, okay.
I think pitfalls like this one (with the garbage collector, for
example) should definitely be documented somewhere. I would imagine
that quite a few people who try to set the length of an array won't
realize that they can run out of memory this way, especially because
it's
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:41:54 -0500, %u wrote:
Increasing the sizes of an array has always given me the shivers, as
beautiful as it is.
Since dmd around 2.042, array resizing and memory management has been
extremely safe. It should be very difficult for you to get into trouble.
Could so
Increasing the sizes of an array has always given me the shivers, as
beautiful as it is.
Could someone explain why this code behaves the way it does?
string s = "1234";
s.length = 7;
writefln("\"%s\"", s);
prints: "1234���"
Given that it makes no sense to extend a const-size array,
