On Thursday, November 03, 2011 16:58 Lishaak Bystroushaak wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Is there any way how to format date with formating strings? Something
> like strftime in python;
> http://docs.python.org/library/datetime.html#strftime-and-strptime-behavior
Not currently. SysTime (and the other time p
Hello.
Is there any way how to format date with formating strings? Something
like strftime in python;
http://docs.python.org/library/datetime.html#strftime-and-strptime-behavior
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:50:31 -0400, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/03/2011 07:15 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I could use this idea, I think, to implement a singly linked list in
dcollections as well (the prospect of not having O(1) removal is what
has stopped me). Thanks for the idea!
Nice!
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:13:55 -0400, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/03/2011 09:46 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:50:31 -0400, Timon Gehr
wrote:
On 11/03/2011 07:15 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:47:28 -0400, Timon Gehr
wrote:
On 11/03/2011 06:13
On 11/03/2011 09:46 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:50:31 -0400, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/03/2011 07:15 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:47:28 -0400, Timon Gehr
wrote:
On 11/03/2011 06:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:35
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:27:46 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 22:37, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:08:31 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 21:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
dcollections stipulates that all ranges/cursors can be verified in
O(
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:50:31 -0400, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/03/2011 07:15 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:47:28 -0400, Timon Gehr
wrote:
On 11/03/2011 06:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:35:36 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011
On 03.11.2011 22:37, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:08:31 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 21:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
dcollections stipulates that all ranges/cursors can be verified in
O(lgn) time or better to belong to a specific container. In some ca
On 11/03/2011 07:15 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:47:28 -0400, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/03/2011 06:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:35:36 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 19:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:08:31 +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 03.11.2011 21:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> The range type for a SList has a single pointer to the currently
>> iterated node. How do you remove that node without having access to the
>> head/previous pointer?
>>
>>
> removeAfte
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:08:31 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 21:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
dcollections stipulates that all ranges/cursors can be verified in
O(lgn) time or better to belong to a specific container. In some cases,
this adds an extra word to the range/cursor
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:47:28 -0400, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/03/2011 06:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:35:36 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 19:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:02:22 -0400, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
Dmitry Olshan
On 03.11.2011 21:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:35:36 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 19:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:02:22 -0400, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
And more importantly, it still would be horribl
On 11/03/2011 06:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:35:36 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 19:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:02:22 -0400, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
And more importantly, it still would be horr
Charles McAnany Wrote:
> I noticed that one of the guarantees in TDPL is that any code that is valid
> in both C
> and D should compile with the same result.
This is almost true (there are few differences, in D fixed-size arrays are
managed by value instead of by pointer, and global floating po
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:32:06 -0400, Christophe
wrote:
"Steven Schveighoffer" , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:30402), a
The primitive for a container is remove(range). Ranges are essential to
containers, and should be the major interface to them.
Programmers have to learn ranges to
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:35:36 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On 03.11.2011 19:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:02:22 -0400, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
And more importantly, it still would be horribly slow O(N^2).
Personally, because of that I'd p
On 03.11.2011 19:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:02:22 -0400, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
And more importantly, it still would be horribly slow O(N^2).
Personally, because of that I'd prefer hand-rolled intrusive
singly-linked list any time of day.
"Steven Schveighoffer" , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:30402), a
> The primitive for a container is remove(range). Ranges are essential to
> containers, and should be the major interface to them.
Programmers have to learn ranges to use containers. Hiding ranges is not
helping them.
But
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> > Seems like ./ tries to fix some sort of Namespace Pollution Hell when
> > virtually every installed program ends up in path.
>
> It's also a safety/security matter. Imagine:
>
> $ cat ./ls
> #!/bin/sh
> rm ~ -rf
>
> Gee, let's see what's inside this directory...WTF?
Le 03/11/2011 15:39, Charles McAnany a écrit :
Hi. I noticed that one of the guarantees in TDPL is that any code that is valid
in both C
and D should compile with the same result. But I'm seeing a different behavior
here.
I'm trying to find the smallest double for which the comparison x+1/x = x
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:02:22 -0400, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
And more importantly, it still would be horribly slow O(N^2).
Personally, because of that I'd prefer hand-rolled intrusive
singly-linked list any time of day.
To be honest, I don't understand this.
A "remo
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:24:03 -0400, Max Wolter
wrote:
On 11/2/2011 2:41 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I never said you couldn't (and I've even given examples of such
implementations). It's just not neatly packaged into a method.
But again, if the method is exactly the same as the effici
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 03:41:27 -0400, Mike Parker wrote:
On 11/2/2011 10:41 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Then your specific application can use std.algorithm.find to implement
the equivalent. Only the algorithm body changes, not the usage of the
algorithm.
This is the root of the probl
Hi. I noticed that one of the guarantees in TDPL is that any code that is valid
in both C
and D should compile with the same result. But I'm seeing a different behavior
here.
I'm trying to find the smallest double for which the comparison x+1/x = x is
true.
I take a number way too small, and a n
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> And more importantly, it still would be horribly slow O(N^2).
> Personally, because of that I'd prefer hand-rolled intrusive
> singly-linked list any time of day.
>
To be honest, I don't understand this.
A "remove_if" for non-intrusive single-linked lists should be doa
On 2011-11-03 08:41, Mike Parker wrote:
On 11/2/2011 10:41 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Then your specific application can use std.algorithm.find to implement
the equivalent. Only the algorithm body changes, not the usage of the
algorithm.
This is the root of the problem. How are we su
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 16:41:27 Mike Parker wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 10:41 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > Then your specific application can use std.algorithm.find to implement
> > the equivalent. Only the algorithm body changes, not the usage of the
> > algorithm.
>
> This is the root o
On 11/2/2011 10:41 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Then your specific application can use std.algorithm.find to implement
the equivalent. Only the algorithm body changes, not the usage of the
algorithm.
This is the root of the problem. How are we supposed to know that we
need something fr
On 11/2/2011 9:43 PM, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 11/1/11 11:49 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
On 11/2/2011 3:20 AM, Frédéric Galusik wrote:
Hi,
As the curl documentation is a little bit ...wow.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/etc_c_curl.html
Do someone have a simple example on how to download a si
30 matches
Mail list logo
