Trass3r:
>And that's good behavior imho.<
Here I prefer the C#/Java compilers, that don't initialize and turn the usage
of initialized variables into an error.
>(at function entrance I guess).<
Yes. But you have seen in my program2 the variable x is initialized to 10 in
the main program. Thi
On 12/03/10 23:20, Trass3r wrote:
Is there maybe a way to implement commonly needed vector classes Vec2,
Vec3, Vec4 without having to implement the same basic code over and over
again?
The following are a few libraries that have already implemented vector
classes/structs for Vec2 .. Vec4, they
Trass3r:
> Is there maybe a way to implement commonly needed vector classes Vec2,
> Vec3, Vec4 without having to implement the same basic code over and over
> again?
I have implemented a generic nD vector struct for D1. When I have translated it
to D2 I can show it and Andrei may add it to Ph
Is there maybe a way to implement commonly needed vector classes Vec2,
Vec3, Vec4 without having to implement the same basic code over and over
again?
According to D2 semantics that program2 is correct, because in D you can
use variables that are not initialized by the programmers.
...
Because in C# it is not allowed to use uninitialized variables.
D's general approach is to initialize every variable and only allow
unintialized ones with e
Trass3r:
> > This shows why built-in tuples are good.
> What do tuples have to do with that?
According to D2 semantics that program2 is correct, because in D you can use
variables that are not initialized by the programmers. But the spirit of that
program2 is trash anyway, because it reads the v
So a better question (I don't know the answer) is: what's the purpose of
"in" if now function arguments can be const?
Yeah that's true.
Is this program correct? It compiles and runs, printing 0 two times.
Yeah it behaves as expected cause out parameters are initialized with
their init as
Trass3r:
> why do we have "in" if all
> parameters are in by default?
If you start performing some experiments on your own you can write a small
program like this:
// program1
import std.stdio: writeln;
void foo(int x, in int y) {
x = 1;
y = 2;
}
void main() {
int x, y;
foo(x
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:39:43 -0500, Trass3r wrote:
IIRC it was the same in D1, has it changed? If no, what should be used?
inout is now completely different from ref. It has been used to implement
DIP2
(http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP2&oldid
IIRC it was the same in D1, has it changed? If no, what should be used?
This also reminds of another question: why do we have "in" if all
parameters are in by default?
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:52:29 -0500, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
However, I think it can be fixed, by either handling template function
overloads,
That's the more general solution. Do you know how much hard is to
implement that?
Do you see any downsides or possible bad side
Steven Schveighoffer:
>However, I think it can be fixed, by either handling template function
>overloads,
That's the more general solution. Do you know how much hard is to implement
that?
Do you see any downsides or possible bad side effects?
Bye,
bearophile
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:15:37 -0500, Trass3r wrote:
I stumbled across this while playing with operator overloading. Since
they are now function templates, this becomes an issue.
struct Vector2(T)
{
T x;
T y;
/// element-wise operations, +, -,
Vector2 opBinary(
bearophile wrote:
While looking for possible attribute problems to add to Bugzilla, I have seen
the following D2 program compiles and runs with no errors or warnings:
static foo1() {}
final foo2() {}
ref foo3() {}
enum void foo5() {}
nothrow foo4() {}
pure foo6() {}
static int x1 = 10;
static
14 matches
Mail list logo
