On Thursday, October 06, 2011 23:31:26 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, October 07, 2011 08:23:10 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > On 2011-10-07 08:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 07, 2011 19:08:33 Joel Christensen wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I have a program that uses the ol
On Friday, October 07, 2011 08:23:10 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-10-07 08:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Friday, October 07, 2011 19:08:33 Joel Christensen wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module
> >> std.datetime. I have a DateTime object,
On 2011-10-07 08:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, October 07, 2011 19:08:33 Joel Christensen wrote:
Hi,
I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module
std.datetime. I have a DateTime object, but I can't seem to set its
properties to the current time.
Some thing like:
Dat
On Friday, October 07, 2011 19:08:33 Joel Christensen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module
> std.datetime. I have a DateTime object, but I can't seem to set its
> properties to the current time.
>
> Some thing like:
> DateTime dateTime;
> dateTime = get
Hi,
I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module
std.datetime. I have a DateTime object, but I can't seem to set its
properties to the current time.
Some thing like:
DateTime dateTime;
dateTime = getCurrentDateTime();
-JoelCNZ
On Friday, October 07, 2011 05:28:39 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I'm fairly sure this used to give me a stack overflow error:
> void test() {
> test();
> }
>
> void main() {
> test();
> }
>
> Now it only returns exit code -1073741819.
>
> Could this be related to how WinXP managers error re
I'm fairly sure this used to give me a stack overflow error:
void test() {
test();
}
void main() {
test();
}
Now it only returns exit code -1073741819.
Could this be related to how WinXP managers error reporting? It's
possible that I have some error reporting service disabled, but I'll
h
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:19:37 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Do you know why this program doesn't compile (with DMD 2.056head)?
immutable(int[]) foo(in int[] x) pure {
return new int[1];
}
void main() {}
It gives:
test.d(2): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (new int[](1u))
of ty
Christophe:
> That is very consistent, so I don't think this
> should be considered as a bug. There may be an improvement to ask to
> make the compiler able to check when the cast to immutable is safe, but
> I don't think there is a bug.
The compiler already performs such checks, in this case
bearophile , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:29961), a écrit :
> Andrej Mitrovic:
>
>> Maybe:
>>
>> immutable(int[]) foo(in int[] x) pure {
>>return new immutable(int[1]);
>> }
>>
>> void main() {}
>
> I'd like to know why the code in my original post doesn't compile. I suspect
> it's
10 matches
Mail list logo