On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 23:43:49 UTC, bearophile wrote:
void main() {
auto a = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9][5 .. 2];
}
I tried it too, hoping for something like
[5,4,3]
or at least
[4,3,2] (== [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9][2..5].reverse)
Jonathan M Davis:
Because then it more closely matches how arrays work. The only
part that
doesn't is that it's fully tied to -release rather than
-noboundschecked.
I see, thank you.
Honestly, I think that that's a complete pipe dream anyway,
I will keep dreaming for some more decades. I
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 00:35:08 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > What it should be doing is using version(assert) to throw a
> > RangeError if the
> > arguments are invalid, but the addition of version(assert) is
> > quite recent
> > (previously, the best that could have been done
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 00:46:56 bearophile wrote:
> > To do the same with user-defined structures time ago I have
> > suggested this, that is currently closed waiting for a better
>
> > solution:
> What I meant to say is that if the assert(i <= j) is inside the
> pre-condition then there's
To do the same with user-defined structures time ago I have
suggested this, that is currently closed waiting for a better
solution:
What I meant to say is that if the assert(i <= j) is inside the
pre-condition then there's a hope to run it at compile time
introducing some new trick inside the
auto opSlice(size_t i, size_t j)
in {
assert(i <= j, "some message here");
} body {
auto retval = this.save;
retval._index += i;
return takeExactly(retval, j - i);
}
This is the bug opened by Andrea Fontana for this thread:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9612
At
Jonathan M Davis:
What it should be doing is using version(assert) to throw a
RangeError if the
arguments are invalid, but the addition of version(assert) is
quite recent
(previously, the best that could have been done was to assert).
Do you mean something like this?
auto opSlice(size_t i,
Andrea Fontana:
Done!
I was about to file it myself, so I have added a bit more meat to
your bug report.
Bye,
bearophile
On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 22:48:06 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Andrea Fontana:
writeln(iota(10).cycle()[5..2].take(4));
print:
[5, 6, 7, 8]
Shouldn't [5..2] slice throw a compile/runtime error?
Please file it in bugzilla.
The opSlice of cycle() lacks those pre-conditions or tests, and
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 23:48:05 bearophile wrote:
> Andrea Fontana:
> > writeln(iota(10).cycle()[5..2].take(4));
> >
> > print:
> >
> > [5, 6, 7, 8]
> >
> >
> > Shouldn't [5..2] slice throw a compile/runtime error?
>
> Please file it in bugzilla.
>
> The opSlice of cycle() lacks thos
Andrea Fontana:
writeln(iota(10).cycle()[5..2].take(4));
print:
[5, 6, 7, 8]
Shouldn't [5..2] slice throw a compile/runtime error?
Please file it in bugzilla.
The opSlice of cycle() lacks those pre-conditions or tests, and
there are not enough unittests in Phobos to catch this simple bug
This command:
writeln(iota(10).cycle()[5..2].take(4));
print:
[5, 6, 7, 8]
Shouldn't [5..2] slice throw a compile/runtime error?
12 matches
Mail list logo
