On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 21:49:53 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:45:34 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
Fair point. I just was playing around with it today and was
like, oh that's pretty easy. It was only when I was trying to
see if anyone else had done anything like this that I came
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:45:34 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
Fair point. I just was playing around with it today and was
like, oh that's pretty easy. It was only when I was trying to
see if anyone else had done anything like this that I came
across your project.
I was just looking at the code
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:31:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
I suppose the errors will be more cryptic, since you don't
check if the string referers to an existing member.
You provide only get/set that return by value. So you may need
to generate getters/setters for const values, for ref
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 19:31:28 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 02:17:18 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
What are properties if not "getters" and "setters"? From the
original post: "It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set
num_ and one to get its value."
Two methods
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 02:17:18 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
What are properties if not "getters" and "setters"? From the
original post: "It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set
num_ and one to get its value."
Two methods named "num". No "get" or "set" in sight.
Sorry to bump,
On Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 21:57:42 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/18/17 5:29 PM, Mark wrote:
I see. Is there a way to call invariant() of a class/struct
directly?
That would obviate the need for a particular predicate (copy
the class
state, run the setter, check if invariants are
On 1/18/17 5:29 PM, Mark wrote:
I see. Is there a way to call invariant() of a class/struct directly?
That would obviate the need for a particular predicate (copy the class
state, run the setter, check if invariants are satisfied and restore
previous state if they aren't).
It seems painfully
On Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 15:29:43 UTC, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 15:59:26 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/17/17 12:08 PM, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 09:17:56 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
[...]
Given that D supports class invariants, is there
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 15:59:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/17/17 12:08 PM, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 09:17:56 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/17/17 9:32 AM, Eugene Wissner wrote:
Ah, well thanks. I don't think it makes much sense since it
would be
On 1/17/17 12:08 PM, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 09:17:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/17/17 9:32 AM, Eugene Wissner wrote:
Ah, well thanks. I don't think it makes much sense since it would be
easier to write a complete setter if the user needs extra checks.
Accessors
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 09:17:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/17/17 9:32 AM, Eugene Wissner wrote:
Ah, well thanks. I don't think it makes much sense since it
would be
easier to write a complete setter if the user needs extra
checks.
Accessors are there only for the generation
On 1/17/17 9:32 AM, Eugene Wissner wrote:
Ah, well thanks. I don't think it makes much sense since it would be
easier to write a complete setter if the user needs extra checks.
Accessors are there only for the generation of the standard methods,
that just get or set some object property.
On 1/17/17 8:26 AM, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 18:53:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Love it, and was toying with similar ideas too. One good extension is
to add a predicate to the setter, which guards the assignment. -- Andrei
What kind of predicate do you mean?
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 07:06:05 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 06:26:35 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 18:53:55 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Love it, and was toying with similar ideas too. One good
extension is to add a predicate
On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 06:26:35 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 18:53:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Love it, and was toying with similar ideas too. One good
extension is to add a predicate to the setter, which guards
the assignment. -- Andrei
What kind
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 18:53:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Love it, and was toying with similar ideas too. One good
extension is to add a predicate to the setter, which guards the
assignment. -- Andrei
What kind of predicate do you mean? Can you give an example
please?
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
Hello,
we've just open sourced a small module ("accessors") that helps
to generate getters and setters automatically:
https://github.com/funkwerk/accessors
http://code.dlang.org/packages/accessors
It takes advantage of the
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 03:15:55 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
I was under the impression that you could only access methods
as if they were fields using the @property attribute. After
carefully reading the documentation I see this is not the case
(UFCS does this). Still there are some added
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 06:55:22 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 03:15:55 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
I was under the impression that you could only access methods
as if they were fields using the @property attribute. After
carefully reading the documentation I
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 03:15:55 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 02:17:18 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 20:25:05 UTC, Mike Bierlee
wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
It would generate 2 methods
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 16:37:53 UTC, Iakh wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 16:30:55 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 12:37:58 UTC, Iakh wrote:
Is there possibility to remove affixes in generated accessor
names?
No, there is no way to manipulate the
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 03:15:55 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
I was under the impression that you could only access methods
as if they were fields using the @property attribute. After
carefully reading the documentation I see this is not the case
(UFCS does this). Still there are some
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 02:17:18 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 20:25:05 UTC, Mike Bierlee
wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one to
get its value.
It would be great
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 20:25:05 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one to
get its value.
It would be great if you could generate @properties instead. I
like the more
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one to
get its value.
It would be great if you could generate @properties instead. I
like the more natural way of accessing those instead of
getters/setters.
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 16:30:55 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 12:37:58 UTC, Iakh wrote:
Is there possibility to remove affixes in generated accessor
names?
No, there is no way to manipulate the accessor names. What
affixes do you mean?
You can remove
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
Hello,
we've just open sourced a small module ("accessors") that helps
to generate getters and setters automatically:
https://github.com/funkwerk/accessors
http://code.dlang.org/packages/accessors
It takes advantage of the
On 12/9/16 5:27 AM, Eugene Wissner wrote:
Hello,
we've just open sourced a small module ("accessors") that helps to
generate getters and setters automatically:
https://github.com/funkwerk/accessors
http://code.dlang.org/packages/accessors
It takes advantage of the UDAs and mixins. A simple
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 12:37:58 UTC, Iakh wrote:
Is there possibility to remove affixes in generated accessor
names?
No, there is no way to manipulate the accessor names. What
affixes do you mean?
mixin template GenerateFieldAccessorMethods()
{
static enum GenerateFieldAccessorMethods()
{
string result = "";
return result;
}
}
Strange syntax
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
Hello,
we've just open sourced a small module ("accessors") that helps
to generate getters and setters automatically:
https://github.com/funkwerk/accessors
http://code.dlang.org/packages/accessors
It takes advantage of the
Hello,
we've just open sourced a small module ("accessors") that helps
to generate getters and setters automatically:
https://github.com/funkwerk/accessors
http://code.dlang.org/packages/accessors
It takes advantage of the UDAs and mixins. A simple example would
be:
import accessors;
32 matches
Mail list logo
