On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 20:14:09 UTC, ixid wrote:
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 19:37:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2013 21:16:00 qznc wrote:
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 16:22:29 UTC, Krzysztof Ciebiera
wrote:
> I understand slices now and I don't find it consi
On Monday, October 21, 2013 22:14:08 ixid wrote:
> What would be the issue/s with disallowing appending to slices?
> So you'd have to explicitly duplicate before you could append.
All arrays are slices. There is no difference between the two. It's just that
if you start appending to one, it will
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 19:37:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2013 21:16:00 qznc wrote:
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 16:22:29 UTC, Krzysztof Ciebiera
wrote:
> I understand slices now and I don't find it consistent with
> "no
> shoot in the foot by default" statem
On Monday, October 21, 2013 21:16:00 qznc wrote:
> On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 16:22:29 UTC, Krzysztof Ciebiera
>
> wrote:
> > I understand slices now and I don't find it consistent with "no
> > shoot in the foot by default" statement.
>
> I agree. The pitfalls are well understood, yet everybod
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 16:22:29 UTC, Krzysztof Ciebiera
wrote:
What I want to do is: I want to take a look at every single
solution and extend it if it is possible (eg. if solution
contains obbects a,b,c it can also contain d).
void main()
{
import std.stdio;
int[][] dat
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 16:22:29 UTC, Krzysztof Ciebiera
wrote:
I understand slices now and I don't find it consistent with "no
shoot in the foot by default" statement.
I agree. The pitfalls are well understood, yet everybody seems to
love them. Ok, compared to C array they are an improv
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 14:59:54 UTC, Alexandr Druzhinin
wrote:
If you switch instruction order you create local copy and then
set x[0] in local copy so original is unchanged. But local copy
creating depends on several thing and happens not every
appending in general. Your way is not D-is
21.10.2013 17:55, Krzysztof Ciebiera пишет:
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 10:41:38 UTC, Alexandr Druzhinin wrote:
21.10.2013 17:31, Krzysztof Ciebiera пишет:
void main()
{
int a[][] = [[1,2,3]];
foreach(x; a)
{
x[0] = 0;
x ~= 4;
}
writeln(a);
}
...
&) or [0,2
Krzysztof Ciebiera:
Is the following compiler behavior consistent with language
specification?
Changing elements during foreach is something to avoid, perhaps
I'd like it to be statically forbidden. If you add to this the
reference-struct nature of arrays, you get in troubles.
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 10:31:51 UTC, Krzysztof Ciebiera
wrote:
Is the following compiler behavior consistent with language
specification?
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
int a[][] = [[1,2,3]];
foreach(x; a)
{
x[0] = 0;
x ~= 4;
}
writeln(a);
}
I under
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 10:41:38 UTC, Alexandr Druzhinin
wrote:
21.10.2013 17:31, Krzysztof Ciebiera пишет:
void main()
{
int a[][] = [[1,2,3]];
foreach(x; a)
{
x[0] = 0;
x ~= 4;
}
writeln(a);
}
...
&) or [0,2,3,4] (python, C++ ref). But [0,2,3]? It was
21.10.2013 17:31, Krzysztof Ciebiera пишет:
Is the following compiler behavior consistent with language specification?
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
int a[][] = [[1,2,3]];
foreach(x; a)
{
x[0] = 0;
x ~= 4;
}
writeln(a);
}
I understand why thw progra
Is the following compiler behavior consistent with language
specification?
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
int a[][] = [[1,2,3]];
foreach(x; a)
{
x[0] = 0;
x ~= 4;
}
writeln(a);
}
I understand why thw program could output [1,2,3] (like in C++
without &) or
13 matches
Mail list logo
