Thanks !!
I miss university :'(
>>> Informally, "virtual" means "can be overridden". It only applies to
>>> methods on classes. This definition is informal and ambiguous.
>> virtual functions are slowers because you have the extra step of
>> vtable, right?
>> How much of a difference can I expect
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fraser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Why is every word in every comment underlined with a red squiggle?
>> I see there's something called the "D spell checker" enabled. Is it
>> broken?
>> Disabling spell-checking makes the problem go
Saaa wrote:
Informally, "virtual" means "can be overridden". It only applies to
methods on classes. This definition is informal and ambiguous.
virtual functions are slowers because you have the extra step of
vtable, right?
How much of a difference can I expect?
Because it doesn't look like a lot
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Christopher Wright" wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Not exactly ;) The wrapped type is not equivalent to inheritance.
No, exactly:
class Wrapper(T) : T
{
T opDot() {}
}
class Wrapper(T) : T
{
}
works just as good ;)
-Steve
True, but with opDot, you can s
Bill Baxter wrote:
Why is every word in every comment underlined with a red squiggle?
I see there's something called the "D spell checker" enabled. Is it broken?
Disabling spell-checking makes the problem go away (but only after I
re-saved the file, which was rather unexpected... why should I ha
> Informally, "virtual" means "can be overridden". It only applies to
> methods on classes. This definition is informal and ambiguous.
virtual functions are slowers because you have the extra step of
vtable, right?
How much of a difference can I expect?
Because it doesn't look like a lot of work:
Why is every word in every comment underlined with a red squiggle?
I see there's something called the "D spell checker" enabled. Is it broken?
Disabling spell-checking makes the problem go away (but only after I
re-saved the file, which was rather unexpected... why should I have to
save the file f
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Ary Borenszweig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you don't want to move your files and keep them where they are, create a
> new D project and in the first page of the wizard select "from existing
> source" and type or select the folder where your files are. That wil
Ary Borenszweig escribió:
If you don't want to move your files and keep them where they are,
create a new D project and in the first page of the wizard select "from
existing source" and type or select the folder where your files are.
That will
~ add ~
two files in that directory: .project a
If you don't want to move your files and keep them where they are,
create a new D project and in the first page of the wizard select "from
existing source" and type or select the folder where your files are.
That will two files in that directory: .project and .classpath. But
that's it. I hope t
I think I figured out the answer to my last question about installing Descent.
It seems I can just copy the plugins and features directories from the
Descent .zip over top the ones in in the Eclipse folder.
The next question is about file organization.
I'm thinking it might be nice to Descent as
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Christopher Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [1] It's a bit of a stretch to grant them this name, but if life gives you
> lemmas, make lemma-ade.
>
OhhhHH
I think my head just exploded.
"Christopher Wright" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Not exactly ;) The wrapped type is not equivalent to inheritance.
>
> No, exactly:
>
> class Wrapper(T) : T
> {
> T opDot() {}
> }
class Wrapper(T) : T
{
}
works just as good ;)
-Steve
Saaa wrote:
from the list (private, protected, public) pick public.
Note the difference between peel and peal.
:)
public YellowBanana: Banana
{
void doStuff()
{
bool e = peel(); //visible from derived
//class when defined protected or public.
}
}
Banana a = ne
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Not exactly ;) The wrapped type is not equivalent to inheritance.
No, exactly:
class Wrapper(T) : T
{
T opDot() {}
}
21.11.08 в 01:57 tsalm в своём письме писал(а):
Hello,
I'm on DMD 1.036.
When I'm compiling this code :
// -CODE---
enum ColorValues:uint
{
AliceBlue = 0xF0F8
,AntiqueWhite = 0xF8ECD8FF
,Aqua = 0x00FF
,Aquamarine = 0x80FFD0FF
Hello,
I'm on DMD 1.036.
When I'm compiling this code :
// -CODE---
enum ColorValues:uint
{
AliceBlue = 0xF0F8
,AntiqueWhite = 0xF8ECD8FF
,Aqua = 0x00FF
,Aquamarine = 0x80FFD0FF
,Azure = 0xF0FF
,Beige = 0xF8F4E0FF
Reply to Saaa,
b=cast(Banana)fruits[1].peel();
I'm not shure that will work. IIRC DMD reads that as
b=cast(Banana)( fruits[1].peel() );
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> opDot is useful if you want to make a 'wrapper' type. That is, you want to
> mimic another type, but you want to slightly alter the behavior. opDot
> allows you to 'inherit' all the member functions and fields from the wrapped
> type. For example, if I wanted to
I have attached some code that has been written to take advantage of DWIN
and implement a DeskBand object for Internet Explorer. The DLL that is built
seems to be able to hook into IE without issue. The deskband is visible once
selected from the IE toolbar menu. However, in IE 7, when multiple tabs
"Kagamin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Saaa Wrote:
>
>> In stead of numbers I use an enum, which makes it really difficult to get
>> this wrong:
>> fruits[BANANA].peel();
>
> why not using struct?
How do you mean?
What should be a struct?
>
>
> from the list (private, protected, public) pick public.
> Note the difference between peel and peal.
:)
>
>
> public YellowBanana: Banana
> {
> void doStuff()
> {
> bool e = peel(); //visible from derived
>//class when defined protected or public.
> }
> }
>
>
Saaa Wrote:
> In stead of numbers I use an enum, which makes it really difficult to get
> this wrong:
> fruits[BANANA].peel();
why not using struct?
My bad, I meant:
b=cast(Banana)fruits[1].peel();
"Steven Schveighoffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Saaa" wrote
>>> (and your example doesn't reflect the error messages),
>> How do you mean? Like not at all?
>> As you noticed it isn't the actual code, but I th
"Saaa" wrote
>> (and your example doesn't reflect the error messages),
> How do you mean? Like not at all?
> As you noticed it isn't the actual code, but I thought it would reflect it
> though.
I mean, you have some cast error, but there is no casting in your code
sample.
-Steve
== Quote from Saaa ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
> Is this not possible, or am I doing anything wrong?
> Fruit[2] fruits; // Fruit has no peel function
> fruit[0]= new Apple();
> fruit[1]= new Banana(); //Banana has a protected peel() function returning a
> bool
> bool b;
> b=fruit[1].peal();
> Err
>
> I think you have a typo in your example
:)
> (and your example doesn't reflect the error messages),
How do you mean? Like not at all?
As you noticed it isn't the actual code, but I thought it would reflect it
though.
> but that isn't the problem.
>
> In a strongly typed language, you cannot
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Ary Borenszweig" wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Morusaka" wrote
Hi,
I've read about opdot in D language spec operator overload section, but
the little snippet of code provided isn't enough, for me, to figure out
what it is supposed to do and how to use it or
"Ary Borenszweig" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> "Morusaka" wrote
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've read about opdot in D language spec operator overload section, but
>>> the little snippet of code provided isn't enough, for me, to figure out
>>> what it is supposed to do and how to use it or what it
"Saaa" wrote
> Is this not possible, or am I doing anything wrong?
>
> Fruit[2] fruits; // Fruit has no peel function
>
> fruit[0]= new Apple();
> fruit[1]= new Banana(); //Banana has a protected peel() function returning
> a bool
>
> bool b;
> b=fruit[1].peal();
>
> Error: no property 'peel' for
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Morusaka" wrote
Hi,
I've read about opdot in D language spec operator overload section, but
the little snippet of code provided isn't enough, for me, to figure out
what it is supposed to do and how to use it or what it could be usefull
for.
Could you please hel
Is this not possible, or am I doing anything wrong?
Fruit[2] fruits; // Fruit has no peel function
fruit[0]= new Apple();
fruit[1]= new Banana(); //Banana has a protected peel() function returning a
bool
bool b;
b=fruit[1].peal();
Error: no property 'peel' for type 'project.fruitclass.Fruit'
E
"MikeRJ" wrote
> For some reason i think DM 1.0 is slowly dieing as i see tons of new
> features in D 2.0's phobos not implemented in D 1.0 so im trying to
> migrate to D2.0
>
> my 1st problem is when i compile code:
>
> bool open(char[] fn, char[] mode="rb")
> {
> filename=fn.dup;
> file = fope
"Morusaka" wrote
> Hi,
>
> I've read about opdot in D language spec operator overload section, but
> the little snippet of code provided isn't enough, for me, to figure out
> what it is supposed to do and how to use it or what it could be usefull
> for.
>
> Could you please help me to get the ri
MikeRJ Wrote:
> bool open(char[] fn, char[] mode="rb")
> {
> filename=fn.dup;
> file = fopen(toStringz(filename), toStringz(mode));
> if (!file) return false;
> return true;
> }
D1 and D2 compatible code:
bool open
Hoenir Wrote:
> But I can't currently imagine any way to use this either.
it will be useful when implementing auto_ptr, shared_ptr and likes.
36 matches
Mail list logo
