On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 22:53:31 UTC, Biotronic wrote:
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 16:55:02 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
Sorry, I think you missed the point completely... or I didn't
explain things very well.
I don't think I did - your new explanation didn't change my
understandi
On Saturday, 2 June 2018 at 23:12:46 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 22:53:31 UTC, Biotronic wrote:
[...]
I use something similar where I use structs behaving like
enums. Each field in the struct is an "enum value" which an
attribute, this is because I have not ha
On Sunday, 3 June 2018 at 09:52:01 UTC, Malte wrote:
On Saturday, 2 June 2018 at 23:12:46 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 22:53:31 UTC, Biotronic wrote:
[...]
I use something similar where I use structs behaving like
enums. Each field in the struct is an "enum val
On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 03:26:23 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
Take a variant type. It contains the "type" and the data. To
simplify, we will treat look at it like
(pseudo-code, use your brain)
enum Type { int, float }
foo(void* Data, Type type);
The normal way to deal with this is a sw
On Sunday, 3 June 2018 at 14:57:37 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
On Sunday, 3 June 2018 at 09:52:01 UTC, Malte wrote:
You might want to have a look at
https://wiki.dlang.org/Dynamic_typing
This sounds very similar to what you are doing. I never really
looked into it, because I prefer to know which
On Sunday, 3 June 2018 at 16:36:52 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Sunday, 3 June 2018 at 14:57:37 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
On Sunday, 3 June 2018 at 09:52:01 UTC, Malte wrote:
You might want to have a look at
https://wiki.dlang.org/Dynamic_typing
This sounds very similar to what you are doing. I
So, no body thinks this is a useful idea or is it that no one
understands what I'm talking about?
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 23:20:41 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
So, no body thinks this is a useful idea or is it that no one
understands what I'm talking about?
I think it may be a good use, although I haven't invested so much
time looking into your particular application.
It looks l
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 23:20:41 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
So, no body thinks this is a useful idea or is it that no one
understands what I'm talking about?
Frankly, you'd written a lot of fairly dense code, so
understanding exactly what it was doing took a while. So I sat
down an
On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 03:26:23 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
To get a feel for what this new way of dealing with dynamic
types might look like:
void foo(var y) { writeln(y); }
var x = "3"; // or possibly var!(string, int) for the explicit
types used
foo(x);
x = 3;
foo(x);
(just pseud
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 14:28:14 UTC, Biotronic wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 23:20:41 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
So, no body thinks this is a useful idea or is it that no one
understands what I'm talking about?
Frankly, you'd written a lot of fairly dense code, so
unders
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 15:36:47 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 03:26:23 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
To get a feel for what this new way of dealing with dynamic
types might look like:
void foo(var y) { writeln(y); }
var x = "3"; // or possibly var!(string,
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 17:13:43 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 15:36:47 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
[...]
All types have a type ;) You specified in the above case that m
is an int by setting it to 4(I assume that is what var(4)
means). But the downside,
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 19:33:01 UTC, apz28 wrote:
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 17:13:43 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 15:36:47 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
[...]
All types have a type ;) You specified in the above case that
m is an int by setting it
On Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 16:55:02 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
Sorry, I think you missed the point completely... or I didn't
explain things very well.
I don't think I did - your new explanation didn't change my
understanding at least. This indicates I'm the one who's bad at
explaining.
15 matches
Mail list logo
