Compare
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
With gdc 4.4.6,
(1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas
(2) is not allowed (fails at compile time).
Why?
The semantics of (2) is unambiguous,
and it works perfectly well in Fortran90.
Allowing (2) would make D really attractive
Joachim Wuttke Wrote:
> Compare
>
>(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
>(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
>
> With gdc 4.4.6,
>(1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas
>(2) is not allowed (fails at compile time).
> Why?
>
> The semantics of (2) is unambiguous,
> and it works perfectly well in For
On 11/16/2011 08:08 PM, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
Compare
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
With gdc 4.4.6,
(1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas
(2) is not allowed (fails at compile time).
Why?
The semantics of (2) is unambiguous,
and it works perfectly well in Fortran90.
Allow
On 11/16/2011 2:08 PM, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
Compare
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
With gdc 4.4.6,
(1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas
(2) is not allowed (fails at compile time).
Why?
The semantics of (2) is unambiguous,
and it works perfectly well in Fortran90.
Allowi
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:31:31 +0100, Xinok wrote:
On 11/16/2011 2:08 PM, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
Compare
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
With gdc 4.4.6,
(1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas
(2) is not allowed (fails at compile time).
Why?
The semantics of (2) is unambiguo
On 11/16/2011 10:48 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:31:31 +0100, Xinok wrote:
On 11/16/2011 2:08 PM, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
Compare
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
With gdc 4.4.6,
(1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas
(2) is not allowed (fails at compile t
On 11/16/2011 4:48 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:31:31 +0100, Xinok wrote:
On 11/16/2011 2:08 PM, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
Compare
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
With gdc 4.4.6,
(1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas
(2) is not allowed (fails at compile ti
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:08:33 -0500, Joachim Wuttke
wrote:
Compare
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
With gdc 4.4.6,
(1) compiles and executes as I expected, whereas
(2) is not allowed (fails at compile time).
Why?
The semantics of (2) is unambiguous,
and it works perfec
> The semantics of (2) is unambiguous,
> and it works perfectly well in Fortran90. Allowing (2) would make D
> really attractive for formula-heavy mathematical work.
>
> - Joachim
Heard that line before Walter?
I still have the T shirt.
Steve
On 11/16/2011 2:08 PM, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
I realized a problem with (2), it's actually not possible to rewrite it
using existing constructs because foreach doesn't support multiple
iterators. You can use std.range.zip:
foreach(i; zip(Y, X
On 11/17/2011 07:48 PM, Xinok wrote:
On 11/16/2011 2:08 PM, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
(1) Y[] = X[]*X[];
(2) Y[] = sin( X[] );
I realized a problem with (2), it's actually not possible to rewrite it
using existing constructs
Yes it is. D is Turing Complete!
because foreach doesn't support mul
11 matches
Mail list logo
