On 13/03/2011 00:06, Bekenn wrote:
On 3/12/2011 2:20 PM, Simon wrote:
I've done lots of 3d over the years and used quite a lot of different
libraries and I've come to prefer code that makes a distinction between
points and vectors.
Agreed. This has some nice benefits with operator
On 03/13/2011 01:05 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If you were to try and iterate over a char[] by char, then you would be looking
at code units rather than code points which is _rarely_ what you want. If you're
dealing with anything other than pure ASCII, you _will_ have bugs if you do
that.
Spacen Jasset spacenjas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 13/03/2011 00:06, Bekenn wrote:
On 3/12/2011 2:20 PM, Simon wrote:
I've done lots of 3d over the years and used quite a lot of different
libraries and I've come to prefer code that makes a distinction between
points and vectors.
Agreed. This
On 13/03/2011 14:11, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Spacen Jasset spacenjas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 13/03/2011 00:06, Bekenn wrote:
On 3/12/2011 2:20 PM, Simon wrote:
I've done lots of 3d over the years and used quite a lot of different
libraries and I've come to prefer code that makes a distinction
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:43:09 +0100, Simon s.d.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/03/2011 14:11, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Spacen Jasset spacenjas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 13/03/2011 00:06, Bekenn wrote:
On 3/12/2011 2:20 PM, Simon wrote:
I've done lots of 3d over the years and used quite a lot of
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Simen kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.comwrote:
Spacen Jasset spacenjas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Can't see a fitting operator in D. Multiplication (*) is ambiguous at best
and no other operator seems fitting.
I agree. It's just better do define 'dot' and 'cross'.
On 13/03/2011 15:29, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:43:09 +0100, Simon s.d.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
Convention is to use ^ as cross product and * as dot product.
Really? I've never heard of it. Rather, everyone I've talked to about it
has said exactly what I did.
For some reason, it seems like expressions of the form foo.bar !in
baz aren't allowed. I suspect this is a grammar/parser problem -- the
bang is interpreted as a template argument operator, rather than a
negation operator, and there's really no need to make that
interpretation when it is
On 03/13/2011 07:58 PM, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
For some reason, it seems like expressions of the form foo.bar !in baz aren't
allowed. I suspect this is a grammar/parser problem -- the bang is interpreted
as a template argument operator, rather than a negation operator, and there's
really no
On 2011-03-13 21:27:27 +0100, spir said:
On 03/13/2011 07:58 PM, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
For some reason, it seems like expressions of the form foo.bar !in baz aren't
allowed. I suspect this is a grammar/parser problem -- the bang is interpreted
as a template argument operator, rather than a
I have a data structure that's generally static (const, or even
immutable), but it has some utility storage, which caches certain
results during use. This caching etc. doesn't really affect the
semantics of the main object, and are reset between operations, so I
think it still would be useful
On 2011-03-13 23:27:14 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland said:
Any other ideas on how to handle this sort of mostly const or const
where it counts stuff? Perhaps my design intentions here are off to
begin with?-)
OK -- a *little* quick on the trigger there. My solution: Declare the
method const,
On 2011-03-13 23:32:34 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland said:
(Still open to schooling on the design part of this, though. Perhaps
declaring a method as const is no good when it's not *really* const?
For now, I'm just doing it to check that I don't inadvertently change
things I don't want to
On Sunday 13 March 2011 15:32:34 Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
On 2011-03-13 23:27:14 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland said:
Any other ideas on how to handle this sort of mostly const or const
where it counts stuff? Perhaps my design intentions here are off to
begin with?-)
OK -- a *little* quick
After some searching, I found the documentation here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3122
Shouldn't this be on the web site somewhere?
Hi, I'm fairly new to D and I'm writing a Space Invaders clone to get myself
acquainted with the language.
I'm having trouble passing D strings (char[]) to SDL, in particular
SDL_LoadBMP(), I keep receiving a segfault.
Heres the code:
void setImg(string path) {
// concat null terminating
Use toStringz from std.string, ala:
SDL_LoadBMP(toStringz(path));
Do not embed nulls before calling toStringz, so remove 'path ~= \0;'
Wait, actually I'm not sure if there's toStringz for D1, it is there
for D2. Try it out, I guess.
toStringz is in D1 but still no luck, I still get the same error
Thanks for the suggestion though
On Sunday 13 March 2011 21:32:49 Gene P. Cross wrote:
Hi, I'm fairly new to D and I'm writing a Space Invaders clone to get
myself acquainted with the language.
I'm having trouble passing D strings (char[]) to SDL, in particular
SDL_LoadBMP(), I keep receiving a segfault.
Heres the code:
I've amended the source to pass the strings pointer (path.ptr) after adding a
null
but the problem still persists.
I lost for what it could be and I'm certain this is where the problem is,
because
if I remove the method call, the program runs fine.
I've noticed that calling SDL_LoadBMP and
21 matches
Mail list logo
