On 12/26/10 6:04 PM, Tomek Sowiński wrote:
spir wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
int i = void; // not initialized
Thanks. Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think
at 'void'. (I will use it often).
On Monday 27 December 2010 04:28:29 spir wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:04:28 -0800
>
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday 26 December 2010 07:08:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > > On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
> > > >
> > > > Andrej Mitrovic w
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:04:28 -0800
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday 26 December 2010 07:08:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
> > > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
> > >
> > > Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > >> int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> > >> in
On Sunday 26 December 2010 15:02:42 Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 26.12.2010 23:04, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> > On Sunday 26 December 2010 07:08:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
> >>>
> >>> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> in
spir wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>
> > int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> > int i = void; // not initialized
>
> Thanks. Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think
> at 'void'. (I will use it often). By the way, I don't want to
On 12/27/10, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> I really like how D does this: Make the safe thing default and the
> unsafe thing possible via more typing.
Compare this to Go, where the safe thing is the only way of doing
things and the unsafe thing is impossible*.
Unsafe can be useful, and D allows it. But
Am 26.12.2010 23:04, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
On Sunday 26 December 2010 07:08:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
int i = void; // not initialized
Thanks. Actua
On Sunday 26 December 2010 07:08:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
> >
> > Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> >> int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> >> int i = void; // not initialized
> >
> > Thanks. Actually this solves my "se
On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
int i = void; // not initialized
Thanks. Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think at 'void'.
(I will use it often). By the way, I don't wa
spir:
> Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think at 'void'. (I
> will use it often).
Do not use =void often, it's for performance critical situations only (and
other uncommon situations). It goes against the D way.
Bye,
bearophile
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> int i = void; // not initialized
Thanks. Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think at 'void'.
(I will use it often). By the way, I don't want to play the superhero with
un
Well that's why I declare my variables right where I need them,
compared to e.g. Pascal where you have to define all variables at the
top.
But If I understand correctly, then you can use the following:
3) int i = int.init; // meant to be auto-initialized to int.init
4) int i; // auto-initialized
Andrej Mitrovic:
> int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> int i = void; // not initialized
I think the OP meant:
1) int i = void; // not initialized
2) int i = 0; // initialized to 0
3) int i; // meant to be auto-initialized to int.init, similar to case 2
4) int i; // auto-initialized to in
int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
int i = void; // not initialized
There is no ambiguity. If you want to play with non-initialized values
(and play a superhero) you have to work extra and "initialize" those
variables with void, which means they're uninitialized.
On 12/26/10, spir wrote:
Hello,
I have a problem with D's auto-init feature. When reading in someone else's code
int i;
there is no way, I guess, to know whether this means "i is initialised to 0" or
"i is left undefined". For this reason, in the former case I do explicitely
initialise. Thus,
int i = 0;
15 matches
Mail list logo