On 5/29/11, bearophile wrote:
> Andrej Mitrovic:
>
>> C struct initialization in D is also buggy, it doesn't take into
>> account field initializers. It's best to get used to the D way of
>> initializing structs.
>
> I'd like it to be debugged instead :-)
Well if it has already been decided that
Andrej Mitrovic:
> C struct initialization in D is also buggy, it doesn't take into
> account field initializers. It's best to get used to the D way of
> initializing structs.
I'd like it to be debugged instead :-)
Bye,
bearophile
C struct initialization in D is also buggy, it doesn't take into
account field initializers. It's best to get used to the D way of
initializing structs.
On 2011-05-29 15:01, bearophile wrote:
Jacob Carlborg:
Isn't that struct initialization syntax deprecated or to be deprecated?
You may be right. Sometimes I read about deprecations, and then after a while I
forget it because the alternative (like using the complex numbers of Phobos) is
too
Jacob Carlborg:
> Isn't that struct initialization syntax deprecated or to be deprecated?
You may be right. Sometimes I read about deprecations, and then after a while I
forget it because the alternative (like using the complex numbers of Phobos) is
too much ugly by comparison :-)
I think we n
On 2011-05-29 03:56, bearophile wrote:
Era Scarecrow:
I don't seem to have a good explanation why this isn't working.
Also try:
struct Joined {
string name, partof, preReq;
}
struct SubrecordParts {
string name;
int size;
string[] notes;
int identifyBy;
int[]
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> Also try:
> struct Joined {
> string name, partof, preReq;
> }
> Joined[] attached = [
> {"MAST", "DATA", "TES3"},
> {"ANAM","INTV", "FACT"}
> ];
Coming from C, this is exactly what I first tried. However since I don't r
Era Scarecrow:
> I don't seem to have a good explanation why this isn't working.
Also try:
struct Joined {
string name, partof, preReq;
}
struct SubrecordParts {
string name;
int size;
string[] notes;
int identifyBy;
int[] partSize;
}
Joined[] attached = [
{"MAST",
== Quote from Robert Clipsham (rob...@octarineparrot.com)'s article
> On 28/05/2011 23:57, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> try attached = [joined("MAST", "DATA", "TES3"), joined("ANAM", "INTV",
> "FACT")];
> Similar here, parts = [ subrecord_parts("AADT", 16, ["fWeight",
> "iValue", "iUses", "fQuality"], -
On 28/05/2011 23:57, Era Scarecrow wrote:
I don't seem to have a good explanation why this isn't working. All i end up
getting is 'Error: cannot implicitly convert expression of type
string[][] to joined[]'. I also get 'incompatible types for (("AADT") ? (16)):
'string' and 'int''. I've tr
I don't seem to have a good explanation why this isn't working. All i end up
getting is 'Error: cannot implicitly convert expression of type
string[][] to joined[]'. I also get 'incompatible types for (("AADT") ? (16)):
'string' and 'int''. I've tried it with casts, and full array qualifiers.
11 matches
Mail list logo
