On 2015-05-10 10:14, Oren Tirosh wrote:
I think it should work for any two structs as long their fields are
public and individually assignment-compatible.
Just for the record, "tupleof" bypasses protection.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 5/10/2015 1:18 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Using LDC, the tuple version generates more code unoptimized, but with
optimization, the exact same assembly language code is generated for
the two cases.
Win.
This is what makes D's ranges+algorithms so attractive. They are easier t
On 10 May 2015 at 21:41, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 08:07:38 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 13:07 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> […]
>>> It probably depends on the compiler. The way to find out is to look at
>>> th
On Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 08:07:38 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 13:07 -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
It probably depends on the compiler. The way to find out is to
look at the generated assembler.
assembly language file, not assembler (which is the
progra
On 5/10/2015 1:07 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
ldc2 and gdc have options to write the assembly language file, maybe I
am missing it but dmd appears not to advertise such an option.
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/obj2asm.html
On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 08:47 +, Oren Tirosh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> > > tuple(current, next) = tuple(next , current +next);
> >
[…]
> Works for me. If this is version or compiler dependent this
> definitely needs investigation.
It does not for me using rdmd 2.067. My implementa
.
I did not mean imply that it doesn't, just that what I wrote is
not some proposed syntax for tuple assignment but something that
actually works now.
This works right now and is quite aesthetically pleasing:
tuple(current, next) = tuple(next , current +next);
This does not
On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 08:14 +, Oren Tirosh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 May 2015 at 17:16:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> >
[…]
> > TypeTuple!(current, next) = tuple(next , current +next);
This works.
> This works right now and is quite aesthetically pleasing:
>
> t
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 13:07 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 5/9/2015 10:16 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > Python has tuple assignment so you see things like:
> >
> > previous, current = current, previous + current
> >
>
On Saturday, 9 May 2015 at 20:07:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It probably depends on the compiler. The way to find out is to
look at the generated assembler.
fwiw, I tried to look at this earlier and found out a single
tuple generates too much assembly for asm.dlang.org to display ;)
On Saturday, 9 May 2015 at 17:16:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Python has tuple assignment so you see things like:
previous, current = current, previous + current
especially if you are doing silly things like calculating
Fibonacci
Sequence values. Translating this to D, you end up
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 13:07 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> […]
> It probably depends on the compiler. The way to find out is to look
> at the
> generated assembler.
assembly language file, not assembler (which is the
program to do the transformation)
ldc2 and gdc have options t
On 5/9/2015 10:16 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Python has tuple assignment so you see things like:
previous, current = current, previous + current
especially if you are doing silly things like calculating Fibonacci
Sequence values. Translating this to D, you end up with
Python has tuple assignment so you see things like:
previous, current = current, previous + current
especially if you are doing silly things like calculating Fibonacci
Sequence values. Translating this to D, you end up with:
TypeTuple!(current, next) = tuple(next , current +next
On 07/10/2010 19:45, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/7/10 12:45 CDT, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-10-07 12:34:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
My suggestion is that we deprecate TypeTuple and we call it AliasTuple
because that's really what it is - it's a tuple of stuff that can be
passed
Juanjo Alvarez, el 9 de octubre a las 04:02 me escribiste:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:11:53 -0400, bearophile
> wrote:
> >This syntax you have explained doesn't do what you think it does:
> >a, b, c, _ = ('tuple', 'of', 'three')
>
> That was a typo, I meant to write:
>
> a, b, _ = ('tuple', 'of',
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:11:53 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
This syntax you have explained doesn't do what you think it does:
a, b, c, _ = ('tuple', 'of', 'three')
That was a typo, I meant to write:
a, b, _ = ('tuple', 'of', 'three')
Juanjo Alvarez wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:14:12 -0400, bearophile
> wrote:
>> This is false both in Python2 and Python3.
>
>
> What is exactly false on what I said?
> python
Python 2.6.5 (r265:79063, Apr 1 2010, 05:28:39)
[GCC 4.4.3 20100316 (prerelease)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:14:12 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
This is false both in Python2 and Python3.
What is exactly false on what I said?
a, *bc = ('tuple', 'of', 'three')
Yes, that's the syntax for assignment of the remainder, I was
speaking about *ignoring* the remainder without having i
Andrei:
Another possible useful feature for tuples is to unpack them in foreach too:
import std.algorithm, std.stdio, std.range;
void main() {
foreach (p; zip([1, 2, 3], "abcd"))
writeln(p[0], " ", p[1]);
writeln();
foreach ((a, b); zip([1, 2, 3], "abcd"))
writeln(a, "
kenji hara:
> My proposals are:
> 1. We should name definitions of structures.
> - "Structure that all of fields have name" shuld be called 'Struct'.
> - "Structure that some of fields have name" shuld be called 'Odd struct'.
> - "Structure that none of fields have name" shuld be called 'Record
Juanjo Alvarez:
> Python has the special symbol "_" which is used exactly as
> a no-op (you could call it "foo" it you wanted, but "_"
> doesn't create new memory assignments) so you can expand
> arbitrary tuples without creating new symbols:
>
> a, b, c, _ = ('tuple', 'of', 'three')
This is fal
Walter Bright napisał:
> If expr represents a tuple, we (Andrei and I) were thinking about the
> syntax:
>
> auto (a, b, c, d) = expr;
>
> being equivalent to:
>
> auto t = expr; auto a = t[0]; auto b = t[1]; auto c = t[2 .. $];
Typo? If not, what is 'd'?
Either way, I'd like mismatc
On 10/7/10 12:45 CDT, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-10-07 12:34:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
My suggestion is that we deprecate TypeTuple and we call it AliasTuple
because that's really what it is - it's a tuple of stuff that can be
passed in as an alias parameter.
Personally, I like D
Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:45:16 -0400, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2010-10-07 12:34:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> said:
>
>> My suggestion is that we deprecate TypeTuple and we call it AliasTuple
>> because that's really what it is - it's a tuple of stuff that can be
>> passed in as an alias parameter
On 2010-10-07 12:34:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
My suggestion is that we deprecate TypeTuple and we call it AliasTuple
because that's really what it is - it's a tuple of stuff that can be
passed in as an alias parameter.
Personally, I like D built-in tuples; they're so simple. At th
2010年10月8日1:34 Andrei Alexandrescu :
> On 10/7/10 11:11 CDT, kenji hara wrote:
>> 2010/10/7 bearophile:
>>> Another design decision is if tuples have a nominative or structural type,
>>> this problem comes out in this bug report:
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4128
>>
>>> Anothe
On 10/7/10 11:11 CDT, kenji hara wrote:
> 2010/10/7 bearophile:
>> Another design decision is if tuples have a nominative or structural type,
>> this problem comes out in this bug report:
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4128
>
>> Another significant problem is about naming things
2010/10/7 bearophile :
> Another design decision is if tuples have a nominative or structural type,
> this problem comes out in this bug report:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4128
> Another significant problem is about naming things, currently the situation
> is a mess:
> http:
t;>
> >> float[3] xyz;
> >> auto (x, y, z) = xyz;
> >>
> >>The Lithpers among you will notice that this essentially provides a handy
> >>car,cdr shortcut for tuples and arrays:
> >>
> >> auto (car, cdr) = expr;
> >
On 10/7/10 7:09 CDT, bearophile wrote:
In the two threads (that are a single thread) most of the things I've seen are
bad/wrong.
I have discussed about Tuples several times in the D newsgroup and in Bugzilla.
Please don't ignore all my work.
Before designing tuple syntax you must decide what
bearophile wrote:
In my opinion it's good for a built-in D tuple to be a structural type.
This also means you are allowed to perform an == among two tuples of
different length (the result is known statically to be always false).
I understand (and agree to) the opinion that tuples should be
On 10/7/10 3:55 CDT, Pelle wrote:
On 10/07/2010 08:08 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
If expr represents a tuple, we (Andrei and I) were thinking about the
syntax:
auto (a, b, c, d) = expr;
being equivalent to:
auto t = expr; auto a = t[0]; auto b = t[1]; auto c = t[2 .. $];
You can also do this wi
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> That's because Python is not a strictly typed language. With proper type
> propagation compiler helps you writing code the way in meant to be. E.g.
> the following:
>
> (a, b, c, d) = ('tuple', 'of', 'three')
>
> could be statically disabled, but there is nothing wro
In the two threads (that are a single thread) most of the things I've seen are
bad/wrong.
I have discussed about Tuples several times in the D newsgroup and in Bugzilla.
Please don't ignore all my work.
Before designing tuple syntax you must decide what the purpose of D tuples is.
Then you hav
On 10/07/2010 08:08 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
If expr represents a tuple, we (Andrei and I) were thinking about the
syntax:
auto (a, b, c, d) = expr;
being equivalent to:
auto t = expr; auto a = t[0]; auto b = t[1]; auto c = t[2 .. $];
You can also do this with arrays, such that:
float[3] xyz
On 10/07/2010 09:03 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
Russel Winder wrote:
Python may be the best base to compare things to as tuple assignment has
been in there for years.
Too segue this into the previous thread, how does Python treat (1)? Is
it a floor wax or a dessert topping?
http://www.nbc.com
as tuple assignment has
been in there for years.
Pythons choice is not a car/cdr approach but an exact match approach.
So then we'd have the proposed notation not work with dynamic arrays -
only with static arrays and tuples.
Andrei
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:42:06 +0400, Brad Roberts
wrote:
On 10/6/2010 11:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Russel Winder wrote:
Python may be the best base to compare things to as tuple assignment
has
been in there for years.
Pythons choice is not a car/cdr approach but an exact match approach
On 10/6/2010 11:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> Russel Winder wrote:
>> Python may be the best base to compare things to as tuple assignment has
>> been in there for years.
>>
>> Pythons choice is not a car/cdr approach but an exact match approach.
>> so if t repre
to compare things to as tuple assignment has
been in there for years.
Pythons choice is not a car/cdr approach but an exact match approach.
so if t represents a tuple datum or a function returning a tuple:
x = t
then x is a tuple -- remembering that variables are all just references
to
Russel Winder wrote:
Python may be the best base to compare things to as tuple assignment has
been in there for years.
Too segue this into the previous thread, how does Python treat (1)? Is it a
floor wax or a dessert topping?
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax
Russel Winder wrote:
Python may be the best base to compare things to as tuple assignment has
been in there for years.
Pythons choice is not a car/cdr approach but an exact match approach.
so if t represents a tuple datum or a function returning a tuple:
x = t
then x is a tuple
ust references
to objects implemented via keys in a dictionary, and:
a , b , c = t
or
( a , b , c ) = t
is tuple assignment where now t is required to be a tuple of length 3.
cf.
|> python
Python 2.6.5 (r265:79063, Apr 16 2010, 13:57:41)
[GCC 4.4.3] on
If expr represents a tuple, we (Andrei and I) were thinking about the syntax:
auto (a, b, c, d) = expr;
being equivalent to:
auto t = expr; auto a = t[0]; auto b = t[1]; auto c = t[2 .. $];
You can also do this with arrays, such that:
float[3] xyz;
auto (x, y, z) = xyz;
The L
45 matches
Mail list logo
