On 6/13/17 7:51 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 06/14/2017 12:45 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, the fact that immutable implicitly casts to const(inout) is a
special property enabled by the knowledge that immutable data can
NEVER change, so it's OK to assume it's (at least) const for all
On 06/14/2017 12:45 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, the fact that immutable implicitly casts to const(inout) is a
special property enabled by the knowledge that immutable data can NEVER
change, so it's OK to assume it's (at least) const for all references.
The same cannot be true of const
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 22:16:37 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
No bug. `static` has no effect on module-level variables. `z`
is a normal mutable variable, not at all guaranteed to be
constant. Make it an `enum` or `immutable`.
Note that immutable doesn't guarantee compile-time constancy,
On 6/13/17 5:58 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 06/13/2017 10:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
const(inout) actually *is* a thing :)
It's a type constructor that can be implicitly cast from immutable.
This has advantages in some cases.
See (horribly written) table at the bottom if the inout function
On 06/14/2017 12:04 AM, jmh530 wrote:
The code below doesn't compile because "static variable z cannot be read
at compile time". However, z is a static variable, so I don't see why it
wouldn't be available at compile-time.
Bug or am I missing something?
struct Bar
{
int x = 2;
int
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 22:04:48 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
The code below doesn't compile because "static variable z
cannot be read at compile time". However, z is a static
variable, so I don't see why it wouldn't be available at
compile-time.
Bug or am I missing something?
struct Bar
{
The code below doesn't compile because "static variable z cannot
be read at compile time". However, z is a static variable, so I
don't see why it wouldn't be available at compile-time.
Bug or am I missing something?
struct Bar
{
int x = 2;
int y;
}
static Bar z = {y:1};
void main()
On 06/13/2017 10:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
const(inout) actually *is* a thing :)
It's a type constructor that can be implicitly cast from immutable. This
has advantages in some cases.
See (horribly written) table at the bottom if the inout function section
here:
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:04:46 UTC, WhatMeWorry wrote:
Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I just reinstalled everything and
it's all good. Something was really screwed up.
"Screwed up" is also a fairly good way to describe my responses
too, since I also missed your clear statement that you
On 6/13/17 3:58 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 06/13/2017 09:29 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
Is it possible for the `result` variable in the following code to be
returned as an immutable type if it's created by adding two immutable
types?
Qualify the return type as `inout`:
inout(Rational)
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 12:39:53 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 12:38:03 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 21:58:27 UTC, WhatMeForget wrote:
Just trying to compile a "Hello World" using dub and ldc2.
I presume from your
On 06/13/2017 09:29 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
Is it possible for the `result` variable in the following code to be
returned as an immutable type if it's created by adding two immutable
types?
Qualify the return type as `inout`:
inout(Rational) opBinary(/*...*/)(/*...*/) inout {/*...*/}
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 11:36:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Nope, const works just fine. A clue is in your return type --
it's not inout!
This should work:
public Rational opBinary(string op)(Rational rhs) const
If Rational had any indirections, then inout would be required,
and
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 16:49:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:51:40AM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...]
I think Andrei has a nice way to do opCmp for integers that's
a simple subtraction and negation or something like that.
[...]
In
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 14:51:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Yes, I saw that when I was looking (you can see from my reply
that you quoted below).
Yes, I had missed that point.
Yes I think it makes sense to have such a comparison function
for non-ranges. Yes it probably belongs
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:51:40AM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> I think Andrei has a nice way to do opCmp for integers that's a simple
> subtraction and negation or something like that.
[...]
In theory, cmp(int x, int y) can be implemented simply as (x - y).
On 6/11/17 11:24 AM, Honey wrote:
On Friday, 9 June 2017 at 17:50:28 UTC, Honey wrote:
Looking at the implementation of Tuple.opCmp, I'm not sure I'd bet on
existence of opCmp for fundamental types:
int opCmp(R)(R rhs)
if (areCompatibleTuples!(typeof(this), R, "<"))
{
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 12:38:03 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 21:58:27 UTC, WhatMeForget wrote:
Just trying to compile a "Hello World" using dub and ldc2.
I presume from your command line you're running Windows?
... I don't know where I got that idea
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 21:58:27 UTC, WhatMeForget wrote:
Just trying to compile a "Hello World" using dub and ldc2.
Let's start from the beginning: how did you install LDC? I
presume from your command line you're running Windows?
On 6/12/17 11:31 AM, Arafel wrote:
As you can see, the only change is the type the function returns, but I
don't see how it should make any difference.
Also, changing from "enum" to "static immutable", or even removing the
"enum" and directly embedding the function literal doesn't seem to make
On 6/12/17 3:36 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 07:38:44PM +, Gary Willoughby via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
In the following code is there any way to make the `opBinary` method
generic to be able to accept immutable as well as a standard type? The
On 6/12/17 3:51 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I don't know how H. S. Teoh managed to answer 'before' I posted but
thanks guys! :)
D programmers are *that* good.
Seriously though, for NNTP connections, timestamp is taken from the
submitter's PC.
-Steve
On 06/13/2017 02:00 AM, Andre Pany wrote:
I can not find a traits "isTemplateOf".
You're close. :)
https://dlang.org/phobos/std_traits.html#isInstanceOf
Ali
Are you looking for something like this?
import std.typecons;
import std.traits;
alias yes = Nullable!int;
struct no {}
template isNullable(T : Nullable!X, X)
{
enum isNullable = true;
}
template isNullable(T)
{
enum isNullable = false;
}
void main()
{
static
Hi,
I loop through a structure during compile time and want to check
whether a field of the structure is of type Nullable.
Therefore I use the TemplateOf traits which works for Nullable
fields but raises an error for fields which are structures and
not templated.
static if(is(T == struct)
On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 20:10:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Therefore, nowadays I always recommend writing parenthesis with
type modifiers, so that the intent it unambiguous, i.e., always
write `inout(Rational)` rather than `inout Rational`, unless
you intend for `inout` to apply to the
Well, I had kind of found a workaround (changing the return type to
return the element and not the index) which I didn't like too much (what
if there are duplicates?).
Now that I've found a "proper" workaround well, I'm still interested
in knowing the reason, if possible, or if it's a
27 matches
Mail list logo
