On 3/31/11 2:32 AM, Aleksandar Ružičić wrote:
Is it possible to use opDispatch as generic getter and setter at the
same time? Something like __get() and __set() in PHP..
this is what I've tried: https://gist.github.com/895571
and I get Error: template instance opDispatch!("bar") matches more
th
On 03/30/2011 04:32 PM, Caligo wrote:
I have a struct that looks something like this:
struct Box(T, size_t width, size_t height){
alias width width_;
alias height height_;
//do something with a Box of different size
void Fun( B )(B b){
// using width and height of b
B.width_;
On 03/31/2011 02:40 AM, Aleksandar Ružičić wrote:
2011/3/31 Aleksandar Ružičić:
Or maybe there is some other way to achive what I want and I'm not
aware of it? :-)
I know I could have used opIndex and opIndexAssign but I really want
config.section.entry syntax instead of config["section"]["e
Is it possible to use opDispatch as generic getter and setter at the
same time? Something like __get() and __set() in PHP..
this is what I've tried: https://gist.github.com/895571
and I get Error: template instance opDispatch!("bar") matches more
than one template declaration, path\to\test.d(57):
2011/3/31 Aleksandar Ružičić :
>
> Or maybe there is some other way to achive what I want and I'm not
> aware of it? :-)
>
I know I could have used opIndex and opIndexAssign but I really want
config.section.entry syntax instead of config["section"]["entry"]...
I have a struct that looks something like this:
struct Box(T, size_t width, size_t height){
alias width width_;
alias height height_;
//do something with a Box of different size
void Fun( B )(B b){
// using width and height of b
B.width_;
B.height_;
}
}
auto b1 = Box!(double, 2,
Jonathan M Davis:
> Naturally, the executation time does vary some, but it's consistently over
> 400
> times (and generally more like 450 times) more expensive to have the
> exception
> be thrown and caught than it is to have it not be thrown.
On Windows in a benchmark I've seen thrown except
On 2011-03-30 14:05, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 12:40 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On 2011-03-30 05:09, spir wrote:
> >> On 03/30/2011 05:32 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> >>> On 03/29/2011 03:40 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
> I was given two words of advice on exceptions:
> "Use excepti
On 03/30/2011 12:40 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On 2011-03-30 05:09, spir wrote:
On 03/30/2011 05:32 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/29/2011 03:40 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
I was given two words of advice on exceptions:
"Use exceptions for the exceptional"
"Use exceptions only for the exceptiona
On 2011-03-30 05:09, spir wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 05:32 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> > On 03/29/2011 03:40 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
> >> I was given two words of advice on exceptions:
> >> "Use exceptions for the exceptional"
> >> "Use exceptions only for the exceptional"
> >
> > Those advices are given
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:07:51 +0200, Magnus Lie Hetland
wrote:
A while ago, I wrote something like this:
void C(alias foo)() {
void bar() {
foo();
}
bar();
}
void B(T)(uint x=2) {
uint foo() {
return x;
}
C!foo();
}
Also, aside from the erratic DMD be
On 03/30/2011 08:42 AM, Kai Meyer wrote:
> we were talking about what sort of things you can do to
> increase performance
Sorry to change the topic. :) I am fortunate that what I currently work
on does not require more than being careful about not using the wrong
algorithms and data structures
On 03/29/2011 09:32 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/29/2011 03:40 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
> I was given two words of advice on exceptions:
> "Use exceptions for the exceptional"
> "Use exceptions only for the exceptional"
Those advices are given by wise people: they are wise only because they
leav
On 03/30/2011 08:25 AM, Kagamin wrote:
Kai Meyer Wrote:
do all the checking before hand. Arrays are a good example. When not in
-release mode, array boundaries are checked upon every access to the
array, and an exception is thrown if access goes out of bounds. In
-release mode, if you go out of
On 03/30/2011 03:31 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:20:05 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"spir" wrote in message
news:mailman.2909.1301443345.4748.digitalmars-d-le...@puremagic.com...
On 03/30/2011 01:24 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
My understanding of hash tables is tha
Kai Meyer Wrote:
> do all the checking before hand. Arrays are a good example. When not in
> -release mode, array boundaries are checked upon every access to the
> array, and an exception is thrown if access goes out of bounds. In
> -release mode, if you go out of bounds you get a segfault.
No
Mike Linford Wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So I'm writing a function for a library. It takes a struct as an
> argument. The struct's fields can't just be any old values, though. The
> function won't work if some of the fields are weird. It could return an
> erroneous value, or even crash.
>
> The thin
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:20:05 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"spir" wrote in message
news:mailman.2909.1301443345.4748.digitalmars-d-le...@puremagic.com...
On 03/30/2011 01:24 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
My understanding of hash tables is that they allocate a fixed size
array
and
map keys to
A while ago, I wrote something like this:
void C(alias foo)() {
void bar() {
foo();
}
bar();
}
void B(T)(uint x=2) {
uint foo() {
return x;
}
C!foo();
}
It worked well, so I didn't think any more about it. Then suddenly, I
started getting the following error:
On 03/30/2011 05:32 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/29/2011 03:40 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
I was given two words of advice on exceptions:
"Use exceptions for the exceptional"
"Use exceptions only for the exceptional"
Those advices are given by wise people: they are wise only because they leave
th
20 matches
Mail list logo
