Should this be possible? I admit to not being fully clear on the
way delegates are handled, but maybe someone can shed some light?
As an example I use a snippet Ali uses to demonstrate opApply:
struct NumberRange {
int begin;
int end;
int opApply(int delegate(ref int) @nogc operations)
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:22:49 +
Stefan Frijters via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
@nogc is a part of signature. gc-function can't call @nogc-one. the
same is with calling @system function from @safe one, for example. or
impure function from pure.
so to say,
ketmar:
there is currenly no way to specify attributes for such implicit
delegates.
It could be a nice language enhancement.
Bye,
bearophile
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:58:45 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
there is currenly no way to specify attributes for such implicit
delegates.
It could be a nice language enhancement.
i agree. but i tend not to fill enhancement requests without
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:34:02 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
putting this information in Bugzilla is better than letting this
get forgotten.
so it can be forgotten in Bugzilla. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 05:49:29PM +0300, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:34:02 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
putting this information in Bugzilla is better than letting this
get forgotten.
so it can be
ketmar:
so it can be forgotten in Bugzilla. ;-)
And in ten, or one hundred or one thousand years the whole D
language will be forgotten. There are various levels of
remembering and forgetting. Putting bugs and ERs in databases is
a different kind of forgetting.
Bye,
bearophile
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:02:40 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
Some of us regularly comb through old bugzilla issues to find things
to test fix. It may take a long time, but we do try. :-)
(And we could use a lot of help -- there are only a
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 14:34:03 UTC, bearophile wrote:
ketmar:
but i tend not to fill enhancement requests without
corresponding patches,
I agree that having a patch ready is much better. But people
like me file hundreds of ERs without too much damage done, and
many of them get
On 08/24/2014 06:40 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:22:49 +
Stefan Frijters via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
@nogc is a part of signature. gc-function can't call @nogc-one. the
same is with calling @system function from
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:45:14 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
Yeah, the only reason why the original code does not work is the
write() expression in the foreach body.
hm. really. i forgot what is delegate body for opApply. sure, here we
can't
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 18:55:09 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:45:14 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
Yeah, the only reason why the original code does not work is
the
write() expression in the foreach
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:23:01 +
Stefan Frijters via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
request I do have a followup question: is it possible somehow to
have both a @nogc and a normal opApply function available?
you can use templated opApply():
import std.traits;
13 matches
Mail list logo
