On 11/30/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I remember at one point there was someone who had actual code that
> resulted in a loop for ubytes, or was trying to figure out how to foreach
> over all possible ubyte values.
Instant flashback, I think it was this:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives
On 11/30/2011 10:17 AM, Xinok wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 11:46 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> foreach(_i; ubyte.min..ubyte.max + 1){
>> ubyte i = cast(ubyte)_i;
>> }
>>
>> But my point was, foreach over a range gives me all the elements in a
>> range, regardless of how the underlying loop is co
On 11/30/2011 11:46 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:54:11 -0500, Xinok wrote:
On 11/30/2011 7:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:06:11 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The type of the index should be irrelavent to the underlying loop
mechanism.
N
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:54:11 -0500, Xinok wrote:
On 11/30/2011 7:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:06:11 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The type of the index should be irrelavent to the underlying loop
mechanism.
Note that the issue is really that foreach(T i, val; a
On 11/30/2011 7:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:06:11 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The type of the index should be irrelavent to the underlying loop
mechanism.
Note that the issue is really that foreach(T i, val; arr) {...}
translates to for(T i = 0; i < arr.length;
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:06:11 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 20:42:59 Marco Leise wrote:
Am 29.11.2011, 20:41 Uhr, schrieb Marco Leise :
> Am 29.11.2011, 14:53 Uhr, schrieb bearophile
:
>> deadalnix:
>>> No it has nothing to do with this bug.
>>
>> I tend to a
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 20:42:59 Marco Leise wrote:
> Am 29.11.2011, 20:41 Uhr, schrieb Marco Leise :
> > Am 29.11.2011, 14:53 Uhr, schrieb bearophile :
> >> deadalnix:
> >>> No it has nothing to do with this bug.
> >>
> >> I tend to agree.
> >>
> >>> But actually, this exemple should
> >>>
Am 29.11.2011, 20:41 Uhr, schrieb Marco Leise :
Am 29.11.2011, 14:53 Uhr, schrieb bearophile :
deadalnix:
No it has nothing to do with this bug.
I tend to agree.
But actually, this exemple should
generate a warning at least, or being illegal eventually.
I'd like that code to loop on a
Am 29.11.2011, 14:53 Uhr, schrieb bearophile :
deadalnix:
No it has nothing to do with this bug.
I tend to agree.
But actually, this exemple should
generate a warning at least, or being illegal eventually.
I'd like that code to loop on all array 256 items once, and then stop :-)
Bye,
b
deadalnix:
> No it has nothing to do with this bug.
I tend to agree.
> But actually, this exemple should
> generate a warning at least, or being illegal eventually.
I'd like that code to loop on all array 256 items once, and then stop :-)
Bye,
bearophile
I meant that in a sarcastic way. :)
Le 29/11/2011 04:11, Andrej Mitrovic a écrit :
On 11/29/11, bearophile wrote:
Do you know why the compiler doesn't ask you for a cast, and why the run
does that?
Because foreach is broken?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4510
No it has nothing to do with this bug. But actually
On 11/29/11, bearophile wrote:
> Do you know why the compiler doesn't ask you for a cast, and why the run
> does that?
Because foreach is broken?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4510
Andrej Mitrovic:
> Err no? Running after compilation goes into an infinite loop on 2.056.
Silly, this is a quiz, you need to try to answer without compiling it first :-)
Do you know why the compiler doesn't ask you for a cast, and why the run does
that?
Bye,
bearophile
Err no? Running after compilation goes into an infinite loop on 2.056.
Andrej Mitrovic:
> I get an infinite loop. :s
In your brain, really? Is that dangerous?
Bye,
bearophile
I get an infinite loop. :s
17 matches
Mail list logo
