On Friday, March 08, 2013 08:08:48 Rob T wrote:
> On Friday, 8 March 2013 at 06:05:02 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> > Actually no.
> >
> > class myException1 : Exception { this() { super("1"); } }
> > class myException2 : Exception { this() { super("2"); } }
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks! That solves 99% of
One more thing, we finally got __FUNCTION__ (and more) added to
MASTER so that's another missing item that was sorely missed. Now
we can easily log what functions are catching and throwing
exceptions, and more.
The big question is if Throwable will be expanded to
automatically capture the fun
On Friday, 8 March 2013 at 06:09:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
C++ has no exception capabilities that D doesn't have.
Except that D cannot rethrow without explicitly catching. That
may seem like a very minor item, but as I explained in my last
post, the extra boiler plate coding can a
On Friday, 8 March 2013 at 06:05:02 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
Actually no.
class myException1 : Exception { this() { super("1"); } }
class myException2 : Exception { this() { super("2"); } }
[...]
Thanks! That solves 99% of my problem. I wasn't aware that I
could check the derived type from a
On Friday, 8 March 2013 at 05:46:48 UTC, Rob T wrote:
That's very unfortunate, and should be corrected, because it
means that you cannot easily catch multiple derived Exception
types and rethrow the same derived type. Instead you have to
explicitly catch all derived types and rethrow them
indi
On Friday, March 08, 2013 06:46:47 Rob T wrote:
> That's very unfortunate, and should be corrected, because it
> means that you cannot easily catch multiple derived Exception
> types and rethrow the same derived type. Instead you have to
> explicitly catch all derived types and rethrow them individ
On Friday, 8 March 2013 at 01:56:45 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/8/13, Rob T wrote:
In C++, I rethrow an exception without explicitly catching it
catch(...)
{
throw;
}
Anyone know of a way to do the same thing in D?
catch
{
// rethrow?
}
The only way:
try { }
catch (Exception
On 3/8/13, Rob T wrote:
> In C++, I rethrow an exception without explicitly catching it
>
> catch(...)
> {
> throw;
> }
>
> Anyone know of a way to do the same thing in D?
>
> catch
> {
> // rethrow?
>
> }
The only way:
try { }
catch (Exception ex) { throw ex; }
Or use Error or Throwabl
In C++, I rethrow an exception without explicitly catching it
catch(...)
{
throw;
}
Anyone know of a way to do the same thing in D?
catch
{
// rethrow?
}
--rt
On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 06:31:39 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:06:42 +0100, ixid
wrote:
The underscores in values such as 1_000_000 aid readability
but DMD doesn't see anything wrong with any placement of
underscores as long as they follow a number. Is there any
reaso
Indeed, that shouldn't be the case. I filed a bug request:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9661
While it isn't fixed, assign file to a variable so that it
doesn't go out of scope.
On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 16:20:24 UTC, bioinfornatics wrote:
I only replace write by put and
On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 16:12:09 UTC, bioinfornatics wrote:
On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 13:37:56 UTC, lomereiter wrote:
The second is probably faster (with optimizations enabled),
because each call to writeln incurs overhead of
locking/unlocking the file stream (which is stdout in this
c
On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 13:37:56 UTC, lomereiter wrote:
The second is probably faster (with optimizations enabled),
because each call to writeln incurs overhead of
locking/unlocking the file stream (which is stdout in this
case).
If you need to print huge amounts of data, use
lockingTex
Le 07/03/2013 02:11, Matthew Caron a écrit :
On 03/05/2013 08:18 AM, Matthew Caron wrote:
On 03/04/2013 11:24 AM, SaltySugar wrote:
On Monday, 4 March 2013 at 13:25:22 UTC, Matthew Caron wrote:
On 03/03/2013 08:16 AM, SaltySugar wrote:
wxD - dead or alive?
I've been using it. What makes you
The second is probably faster (with optimizations enabled),
because each call to writeln incurs overhead of locking/unlocking
the file stream (which is stdout in this case).
If you need to print huge amounts of data, use lockingTextWriter
like this:
auto w = stdout.lockingTextWriter;
foreach
bioinfornatics:
I mean if one way is more efficient by speed?
To be sure of what's faster you often have to write small
benchmarks.
In this case this should be good:
import std.stdio, std.array;
void main() {
writefln("%-(%s\n%)", ["hello"].replicate(5));
}
But if you want speed this
On 2013-03-07 11:07, Stephen Jones wrote:
As far as I can see gtkD no longer supports openGL so I was thinking it
might be possible to run a gtkD GUI on the main thread and
openGL/Derelict on another. The Gl thread is derived; extends Thread.
With threads having separate memory is this assumption
As far as I can see gtkD no longer supports openGL so I was
thinking it might be possible to run a gtkD GUI on the main
thread and openGL/Derelict on another. The Gl thread is derived;
extends Thread. With threads having separate memory is this
assumption correct?
If it is, I would like to us
Dear,
little question when writing to a file 5 "hello" lines (by
example)
I would like to know if they are a difference between:
writeln( "hello" ); x5
and:
string[] helloList = [ "hello","hello","hello","hello","hello"];
writeln( helloList.join( newline) );
I mean if one way is more effic
19 matches
Mail list logo
