see also:
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/issues/1431 api to find an
available port
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Marc Schütz via Digitalmars-d-learn <
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Looking at an strace of nmap, it seems it opens a bunch of sockets, puts
> them into
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 17:09:46 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 3/16/16 6:37 PM, Mathias Lang wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 21:49:05 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
No, please don't. Assigning a signed value to an unsigned
(and vice
versa) is very useful, and there is no goo
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 13:53:00 UTC, JR wrote:
Interesting, any idea if it is possible to do assignment
within template.. Either:
printVars!(int abc=5,string def="58")();
or something like
printVars!("abc","def",ghi)(5,"58");
What would the use-cases for those be?
I don't think the
On 3/16/16 6:37 PM, Mathias Lang wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 21:49:05 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, please don't. Assigning a signed value to an unsigned (and vice
versa) is very useful, and there is no good reason to break this.
I'm not talking about removing it completely. T
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 18:40:56 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
should it be a compiler warning to assign a negative literal to
an unsigned without a cast ?
yes it should. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3468
In the following code, I explicitly declare array as immutable.
But it compiles with the error shown below in the comment. The
array object is declared immutable, so how can the compiler say
it is a mutable object? In summary, how to pass an immutable
array to an immutable constructor?
class
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 11:22:02 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Change those static if's to just plain old ifs.
But then this wouldn't compile, would it?
```
static if(__traits(compiles, __traits(getMember, a, "b"))) {
return a.b;
}
```
(real code, I am not making this up)
Imagine tho
foreach (i ; 0..4) {
auto th = new Thread(delegate(){listRun(i);});//this is erro
_thread[i]= th;
th.start();
}
void listRun(int i)
{
writeln("i = ", i); // the value is not(0,1,2,3), it all is
2.
}
I want to know how to use it like std::bind.
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 11:18:36 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
Hi all,
I've found discussions, but not an actual "recommended"
solution for the problem of "statement is not reachable"
warnings in templates with early returns...
"statement is not reachable" is fundamentally broken in D fo
On Friday, March 18, 2016 08:24:24 Puming via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I saw from the forum that functions with string like arguments
> better use `in char[]` instead of `string` type, because then it
> can accept both string and char[] types.
>
> But recently when actually using D, I f
On Friday, 18 March 2016 at 14:51:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Note, I have made these mistakes myself, and I understand what
you are asking for and why you are asking for it. But these are
bugs. The user is telling the compiler to do one thing, and
expecting it to do something else. It'
On Friday, March 18, 2016 23:48:32 tsbockman via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> I'm basically saying, "because information is lost when casting
> between signed and unsigned, all such casts should be explicit".
See. Here's the fundamental disagreement. _No_ information is lost when
converting betwee
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 21:49:05 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
No, please don't. Assigning a signed value to an unsigned (and
vice versa) is very useful, and there is no good reason to
break this.
-Steve
I agree, but implicitly allowing for comparisons between the two
allows for e
should it be a compiler warning to assign a negative literal to
an unsigned without a cast ?
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 20:43:09 UTC, jkpl wrote:
I try to anticipate the reason why you want this. [...]
I use something *kinda* sort of similar in my toy project to
print all fields of a struct, for debugging purposes when stuff
goes wrong. Getting the names of the member variables i
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 10:11:43 UTC, Jeff Thompson wrote:
This is a simplified example from a larger class I have where I
need an immutable constructor. This is because I need to
construct an object an pass it to other functions which take an
immutable object. So, how to keep an immutabl
On Friday, 18 March 2016 at 05:20:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstaf
wrote:
Only providing modular arithmetics is a significant language
design flaw, but as long as all integers are defined to be
modular then there is no fundamental semantic difference either.
`ulong.max` and `-1L` are fundamentally
17 matches
Mail list logo
