On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 17:27, Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@test.comwrote:
What would be really cool is if we had a property that returned a random
value of any integrated type. And for user-defined types, maybe it would
call a method with a special name. I guess one could make a template
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:43:49 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
andrej.mitrov...@whatever.com wrote:
I wasn't refering to the mixin, but the call to CheckedInt(). mixin
compiles value ~ op ~ rhs.value, which in this case evaluates to 5 +
5 and the whole call becomes CheckedInt(10).
What I don't
Steven Schveighoffer:
Inside a template instantiation, the template name without template
parameters is equivalent to the current instantiation.
It saves a lot of typing.
And causes some troubles :-) It's a barter, and I am not sure it's a good one.
Bye,
bearophile
Ok I think I am kind of getting this. The template name inside a template is
it's instantiation. I can do CheckedInt.variable and get back the value of
variable in the current instantiation.
The trouble is, when you do a call like CheckedInt() you will loose all other
data that you had before:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:55:47 -0400, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
Inside a template instantiation, the template name without template
parameters is equivalent to the current instantiation.
It saves a lot of typing.
And causes some troubles :-) It's a
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:01:31 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok I think I am kind of getting this. The template name inside a
template is it's instantiation. I can do CheckedInt.variable and get
back the value of variable in the current instantiation.
The trouble
That wasn't my expectation, but nevermind. The example is ok in this case, it's
just that care needs to be taken when making operator overloads. So maybe I
overreacted a little. :)
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
A struct is a value type, so you are making a copy regardless. Your
expectation
Interesting. :)
The following seems to work, although I don't know if that's a good idea?:
struct CheckedInt(N) // if(isIntegral!N)
{
void foo(N n)
{
}
unittest
{
CheckedInt ci;
ci.foo(N.init);
}
}
unittest
{
CheckedInt!int ci1;
CheckedInt!uint
This is a shortened version of some operator overloading code from page 372
(although some code is from pages before it), sorry for the long post:
module binary_ops;
import std.stdio : writeln;
import std.traits;
import std.exception;
unittest
{
auto foo = CheckedInt!(int)(5);
auto bar
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:19:25 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
andrej.mitrov...@whatever.com wrote:
[snip]
struct CheckedInt(N) if (isIntegral!N)
{
private N value;
this(N value)
{
this.value = value;
}
@property
auto Value()
{
return value;
}
//
Yao G. Wrote:
That's a bug. The return value should be CheckedInt(result);
I'll add that to the errata.
Yao G. Wrote:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/mixin.html
I wasn't refering to the mixin, but the call to CheckedInt(). mixin compiles
value ~ op ~ rhs.value, which in this case
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:43:49 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
andrej.mitrov...@whatever.com wrote:
I wasn't refering to the mixin, but the call to CheckedInt(). mixin
compiles value ~ op ~ rhs.value, which in this case evaluates to 5 +
5 and the whole call becomes CheckedInt(10).
Sorry. My
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Yao G. Wrote:
That's a bug. The return value should be CheckedInt(result);
I'll add that to the errata.
Yao G. Wrote:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/mixin.html
I wasn't refering to the mixin, but the call to CheckedInt(). mixin compiles value ~ op ~ rhs.value,
Ali Ãehreli:
It is the same in C++: the name of the template is equivalent to the
current instantiation of the template.
...
It seems to be the same in D. I don't know whether this is intended, or
just a left over from the C++ parts of dmd. (I assume dmd shares code
with the Digital Mars
14 matches
Mail list logo
