Actually I have a bug in `foo()`, the switch statement is executed
even if I didn't get a message back. Here's a fix:
void foo()
{
int result;
bool gotMessage;
while (true)
{
gotMessage = receiveTimeout(1000,
(int x) { result = x; }
Btw disregard that "handle" function, I've used it first but then
decided to change `result` directly in the receiveTimeout function.
It's better that way.
I'm good at answering my own questions. :p
import std.stdio;
import std.concurrency;
import core.thread;
void main()
{
auto workThread = spawn(&foo);
int delay = 500;
int command = 0;
while(true)
{
Thread.sleep( dur!("msecs")( delay += 100 ) );
workThread.send
Note this is just pseudocode:
// worker thread
void doWork()
{
// while there's still stuff in the message queue
while (messagesInQueue)
{
result = receiveOnly!int();
switch(result)
{
// main thread could be enabling or disabling features this w
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:14 PM, enuhtac wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the "is" expression is a great feature of D - but its use is not very
> intuitive, at least for me.
> I'm trying to write a template that figures out if the template
> parameter is of a given type.
> This is the type I would like to check
Hello,
the "is" expression is a great feature of D - but its use is not very
intuitive, at least for me.
I'm trying to write a template that figures out if the template
parameter is of a given type.
This is the type I would like to check for:
struct A( T, string s )
{ ... };
One possibility to a
Match a single extension or any number of extensions. I've said
"range", but I didn't mean a custom type. Just that it works with
either 1 value or an array of values.
On 04/01/2011 11:03 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
At least on Windows, as far as I know, the casing of a file extension doesn't
come into play. But when comparing extensions, you have to be careful to
lowercase the result of `getExt()`, for example:
foreach (string name; dirEntries(curdir, SpanMo
On 4/1/11, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I often have to search for files that have a certain extension. Having to
> expand the code to the following becomes ugly real fast:
>
> foreach (string name; dirEntries(curdir, SpanMode.shallow))
> {
> if (name.isFile && name.hasExt.tolower == "ini" ||
>
At least on Windows, as far as I know, the casing of a file extension doesn't
come into play. But when comparing extensions, you have to be careful to
lowercase the result of `getExt()`, for example:
foreach (string name; dirEntries(curdir, SpanMode.shallow))
{
if (name.isFile && name.getExt
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:52:47 -0400, Regan Heath
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:38:45 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 06:38:56 -0400, Regan Heath
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:54:29 +0100, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
So essentially, you are getti
On 4/1/11, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> In those cases, doesn't the function return the length of the filled
> data or something like that?
I know what you mean. I would expect a C function to do just that, but
in this case it does not. Its lame but I have to deal with it.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:38:45 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 06:38:56 -0400, Regan Heath
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:54:29 +0100, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
So essentially, you are getting the same thing, but using [] is
slower.
It seems I wa
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 06:38:56 -0400, Regan Heath
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:54:29 +0100, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
So essentially, you are getting the same thing, but using [] is slower.
It seems I was right then, thank you and Kagamin for the answers.
This may be sli
I managed to get the file, and even compile it, but apparently the type Ticks
doesn't exists any more, it is now (DMD2.052)
TickDuration, with methods TickDuration.seconds (msecs, hnsecs, ...).
on my computer, it does not generate slower code without the writeln than with.
( .38-.39 secs with, .
On 04/01/2011 12:38 PM, Regan Heath wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:54:29 +0100, bearophile wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
So essentially, you are getting the same thing, but using [] is slower.
It seems I was right then, thank you and Kagamin for the answers.
This may be slightly OT but I ju
2011/4/1 Regan Heath :
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:54:29 +0100, bearophile
> wrote:
>>
>> Steven Schveighoffer:
>>
>>> So essentially, you are getting the same thing, but using [] is slower.
>>
>> It seems I was right then, thank you and Kagamin for the answers.
>
> This may be slightly OT but I just
Regan Heath:
> conceptually it's nice to be able to express (exists but is empty) and
> (does not exist).
You may want to express that, but for the implementation of the language those
two situations are the same, because in the [] literal the ptr is null. So I
think it's better for the progr
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:54:29 +0100, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
So essentially, you are getting the same thing, but using [] is slower.
It seems I was right then, thank you and Kagamin for the answers.
This may be slightly OT but I just wanted to raise the point that
concept
On 3/31/11 11:18 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Actually, this still suffers from the problem when the returned char*
doesn't have a null terminator. It really sucks when C code does that,
and I've just experienced that. There is a solution though:
In those cases, doesn't the function return the le
20 matches
Mail list logo
