On 12/17/20 5:57 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On a side note, though, I find this idiosyncratic behaviour annoying
when all I really want is to use an array as, e.g., a backing for a
stack. For those cases, I ignore array capacity and keep a slice over
the entire allocated storage, including elements
On 12/17/20 1:10 PM, IGotD- wrote:
On Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 17:46:59 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This isn’t correct. Can you post the code that led you to believe this?
-Steve
Sure.
import std.algorithm;
import std.typecons;
import std.stdio;
struct Buffer
{
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 06:57:08PM +, IGotD- via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> How does this connect to the array with zero elements? According to
> your explanation if I have understood it correctly, capacity is also
> indicating if the pointer has been "borrowed" from another array
>
On 12/17/20 8:48 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> There is also assumeUnique()
I meant assumeSafeAppend().
Ali
On Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 18:42:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Are you sure?
My understanding is that capacity is always set to 0 when you
shrink an array, in order to force reallocation when you append
a new element. The reason is this:
int[] data = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 06:10:25PM +, IGotD- via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> b.m_buffer.length 2, b.m_buffer.capacity 31
> b.m_buffer.length 0, b.m_buffer.capacity 0
>
> capacity 0, suggests that the array has been deallocated.
Are you sure?
My understanding is that capacity is
On Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 17:46:59 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
This isn’t correct. Can you post the code that led you to
believe this?
-Steve
Sure.
import std.algorithm;
import std.typecons;
import std.stdio;
struct Buffer
{
this(size_t size)
{
On Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 16:11:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
It's common using arrays for buffering, that means constantly
adding elements and empty the elements. I have seen that when
the number of elements is zero, the array implementation
deallocates the array which is shown with capacity
On Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 16:46:47 UTC, Q. Schroll wrote:
On Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 16:11:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
It's common using arrays for buffering
Outside of CTFE, use an Appender.¹ Unless you're having a
const/immutable element type, Appender can shrink and reuse
space.²
On Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 16:11:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
It's common using arrays for buffering
Outside of CTFE, use an Appender.¹ Unless you're having a
const/immutable element type, Appender can shrink and reuse
space.² If you have, reallocation is necessary anyway not to
break
On 12/17/20 8:11 AM, IGotD- wrote:
> It's common using arrays for buffering, that means constantly adding
> elements and empty the elements.
I show an example of this at the following point in a DConf presentation:
https://youtu.be/dRORNQIB2wA?t=791
The following code:
int[] outer;
It's common using arrays for buffering, that means constantly
adding elements and empty the elements. I have seen that when the
number of elements is zero, the array implementation deallocates
the array which is shown with capacity is zero. This of course
leads to constant allocation and
12 matches
Mail list logo
