bearophile Wrote:
> Paul D. Anderson:
> > Or is this a distinction without a difference?
>
> For POD structs like this one I suggest to implement nothing, and just let
> the compiler copy the struct by itself.
> If the struct is not a POD then I like the dup property. Each of those other
> ways
Inside free functions there can be a locally defined compile-time boolean
constant like __used_return. If you use this constant inside a function the
compiler creates two versions of the function that share the same static
variables (if the function is a template then each pair of instantiated
Paul D. Anderson:
> Or is this a distinction without a difference?
For POD structs like this one I suggest to implement nothing, and just let the
compiler copy the struct by itself.
If the struct is not a POD then I like the dup property. Each of those other
ways can be OK, according to the synt
bearophile Wrote:
>> (time ago I have suggested for a compile time flag that's defined inside
>> functions to know if their result is used, to avoid computing it in some
>> situations, turning the single function in a kind of templated function, but
>> I am not sure it can work well if you have
qwerty:
> For a function without any side effects, it shouldn't be a problem.. I think
> :)
Ignoring the return value of a function without side effects (in D2 pure
functions or nothrow pure functions) has to be an error. I even have a bug
report for this, because it's the same situation as an
If I'm implementing a struct and want to provide for duplication, is there a
standard way to implement this?
Here's an example:
//---
struct S {
// members of the struct -- three integer values
int a;
int b;
int c;
// here's a copy constructor
bearophile Wrote:
> qwerty:
> > If I return *this, I should also provide the *S version of opEquals?
>
> If you don't provide a necessary operator the compiler complaints.
>
>
> > What happens with the return value if it isn't used?
>
> The function is one and it doesn't change, it has to be
qwerty:
> If I return *this, I should also provide the *S version of opEquals?
If you don't provide a necessary operator the compiler complaints.
> What happens with the return value if it isn't used?
The function is one and it doesn't change, it has to be the same for everyone
that calls it
There was a soft link /bin/sh -> dash
I have change this to bash, and now all went fine.
Thank you
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:28:06 -0400, noboy wrote:
>
> > I was little bit surprise because
> > mkdir -p dmd-2/usr/{bin,lib,src/phobos2,share/man
> > do the right thing
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:28:06 -0400, noboy wrote:
I was little bit surprise because
mkdir -p dmd-2/usr/{bin,lib,src/phobos2,share/man
do the right thing.
When you do that, you are using your shell. The shell actually does the
argument expansion, not mkdir. So the question to answer is, doe
I was little bit surprise because
mkdir -p dmd-2/usr/{bin,lib,src/phobos2,share/man
do the right thing.
But if i make
mkdir -p "dmd-2/usr/{bin,lib,src/phobos2,share/man"
it's wrong.
So i have think the system command wrap quotes about the command.
Perl have the same behaviour.
Thank you for you
bearophile Wrote:
> qwerty:
> > My opEquals takes an Vec2 and not a *Vec2, is this wrong?
>
> It's OK. D1 docs say:
> Structs and unions (hereafter just called structs) can provide a member
> function:
> int opEquals(S s)
> or:
> int opEquals(S* s)
>
>
> > Why is return value of the rotate fun
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
> qwerty wrote:
> > In my unittest I tried to test out my rotate function.
> > assert(Vec2(1,2).rotate(90) == Vec(-2,1));
> > But I got these compile errors:
> > vector.d(156): Error: function vector.Vec.opEquals (Vec) does not match
> > parameter types (void)
> > vecto
qwerty Wrote:
> bearophile Wrote:
>
> > qwerty:
> > > If memory serves me right, module is undefined on negative integers.
> >
> > I think it's defined in D (but it's defined badly).
> Got url ? :)
Yeah, here
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/expression.html#MulExpression
Don Wrote:
> qwerty wrote:
> > If memory serves me right, module is undefined on negative integers.
> > int i = -2;
> > i%=10; // i=undefined?
>
> It's not undefined. x%y always has the sign of x, so i will be -2.
>
> This always holds:
> x == y * (x/y) + (x%y);
> And since D uses truncated div
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:25:20 -0400, noboy wrote:
Hello,
import std.stdio;
import std.process;
import std.string;
void main() {
string debPackage="dmd-2";
int dmdVersion=2;
auto path =
format("%s/usr/{bin,lib,src/phobos%d,share/man}",debPackage,dmdVersion);
system("mkdir -p
bearophile Wrote:
> qwerty:
> > If memory serves me right, module is undefined on negative integers.
>
> I think it's defined in D (but it's defined badly).
Got url ? :)
>
>
> > int i = -2;
> > i%=10; // i=undefined?
> > What should I use instead to get i definitely equal to 7?
>
> D outputs -
qwerty wrote:
In my unittest I tried to test out my rotate function.
assert(Vec2(1,2).rotate(90) == Vec(-2,1));
But I got these compile errors:
vector.d(156): Error: function vector.Vec.opEquals (Vec) does not match
parameter types (void)
vector.d(156): Error: cannot implicitly convert expressio
qwerty:
> My opEquals takes an Vec2 and not a *Vec2, is this wrong?
It's OK. D1 docs say:
Structs and unions (hereafter just called structs) can provide a member
function:
int opEquals(S s)
or:
int opEquals(S* s)
> Why is return value of the rotate function compared and not the rotated
> struc
qwerty wrote:
If memory serves me right, module is undefined on negative integers.
int i = -2;
i%=10; // i=undefined?
It's not undefined. x%y always has the sign of x, so i will be -2.
This always holds:
x == y * (x/y) + (x%y);
And since D uses truncated division, the result follows.
This beh
In my unittest I tried to test out my rotate function.
assert(Vec2(1,2).rotate(90) == Vec(-2,1));
But I got these compile errors:
vector.d(156): Error: function vector.Vec.opEquals (Vec) does not match
parameter types (void)
vector.d(156): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
(opCall(1,2).
qwerty:
> If memory serves me right, module is undefined on negative integers.
I think it's defined in D (but it's defined badly).
> int i = -2;
> i%=10; // i=undefined?
> What should I use instead to get i definitely equal to 7?
D outputs -2, Python outputs 8. It's not easy to find a language
If memory serves me right, module is undefined on negative integers.
int i = -2;
i%=10; // i=undefined?
What should I use instead to get i definitely equal to 7?
On a sidenote, where can I read about operation order/definitions?
Like i++, ++i and i%10 not changing i etc.
Hello,
import std.stdio;
import std.process;
import std.string;
void main() {
string debPackage="dmd-2";
int dmdVersion=2;
auto path =
format("%s/usr/{bin,lib,src/phobos%d,share/man}",debPackage,dmdVersion);
system("mkdir -p " ~ path);
}
The result:
dmd-2/usr/{bin,lib,src
it
24 matches
Mail list logo
