On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:05 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 05/20/2015 04:10 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 13:46:22 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
DOC say `may not have` not `must not have` ;-)
OK, if that's the
On 5/21/15 2:35 AM, Daniel Kozák via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:05 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 05/20/2015 04:10 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 13:46:22 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
DOC say
On Thursday, 21 May 2015 at 13:12:36 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 08:54:54 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
On 5/21/15 2:35 AM, Daniel Kozák via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:05 -0700
Ali
On Thu, 21 May 2015 08:54:54 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
On 5/21/15 2:35 AM, Daniel Kozák via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:05 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn
On 5/21/15 10:15 AM, Daniel Kozák via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
import std.stdio;
void f(T:T*)(T* t)
{
writeln(before change this is not called);
}
void f(T)(T t)
{
writeln(before change this is called);
}
void main() {
int val;
f(val);
f!(int*)(val);
}
now it
On 5/21/15 9:14 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
On Thursday, 21 May 2015 at 13:12:36 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 08:54:54 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
On 5/21/15 2:35 AM, Daniel Kozák via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On
On Thu, 21 May 2015 09:58:16 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
On 5/21/15 9:14 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
On Thursday, 21 May 2015 at 13:12:36 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 08:54:54 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 06:31:13 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I don't understand why this behaves as it does. Given the
following two templates:
```
void printVal(T)(T t) {
writeln(t);
}
void printVal(T : T*)(T* t) {
writeln(*t);
}
```
I find that I actually have to explicitly
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 06:31:13 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I don't understand why this behaves as it does. Given the
following two templates:
```
void printVal(T)(T t) {
writeln(t);
}
void printVal(T : T*)(T* t) {
writeln(*t);
}
```
I find that I actually have to explicitly
I don't understand why this behaves as it does. Given the
following two templates:
```
void printVal(T)(T t) {
writeln(t);
}
void printVal(T : T*)(T* t) {
writeln(*t);
}
```
I find that I actually have to explicitly instantiate the
template with a pointer type to get the
On 5/20/2015 6:35 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
DOCS: http://dlang.org/template.html#function-templates
says: Function template type parameters that are to be implicitly
deduced may not have specializations:
Thanks. For the record, the example there is the exact same case.
void Foo(T : T*)(T t) {
On 5/20/2015 6:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I'm using a fairly recent version of dmd master, and it prints out the
address for px in both cases when I compile your code. So, if it's printing
out 100 for you on the second call, it would appear to be a bug that has
been
On Wed, 20 May 2015 06:31:11 +
Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
I don't understand why this behaves as it does. Given the
following two templates:
```
void printVal(T)(T t) {
writeln(t);
}
void printVal(T : T*)(T* t) {
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 09:24:28 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 06:31:11 +
Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
I don't understand why this behaves as it does. Given the
following two templates:
```
void printVal(T)(T t) {
On 5/20/2015 4:36 PM, Namespace wrote:
What about:
import std.stdio;
void printVal(T)(T t) {
static if (is(T : U*, U))
printVal(*t);
else
writeln(t);
}
Thanks, but I'm not looking for alternatives. I'm trying to figure out
why it doesn't work as expected.
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 06:31:11 Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I don't understand why this behaves as it does. Given the
following two templates:
```
void printVal(T)(T t) {
writeln(t);
}
void printVal(T : T*)(T* t) {
writeln(*t);
}
```
I find that I actually have
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 07:27:53 UTC, jklp wrote:
---
import std.stdio;
void printVal(T)(T t) {
writeln(t);
}
void printVal(T: T)(T* t) {
writeln(*t);
}
void main() {
int x = 100;
printVal(x);
int* px = x;
printVal(px);
}
---
here it's
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 07:36:21 Namespace via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
What about:
import std.stdio;
void printVal(T)(T t) {
static if (is(T : U*, U))
printVal(*t);
else
writeln(t);
}
void main() {
int x = 100;
printVal(x);
int*
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 09:35:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well, if
printVal!(int*)(px);
prints 100, then that's a bug. It should print the address. In
fact, it
should be _impossible_ for the second overload of printVal to
ever be
instantiated
IMHO thats not true, it should print
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 09:35:43 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
DOCS: http://dlang.org/template.html#function-templates
says: Function template type parameters that are to be
implicitly deduced may not have specializations:
OK, having reread this, I'm not clear at all what's going on.
Here,
DOC say `may not have` not `must not have` ;-)
On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:24:22 +
Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 09:35:43 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
DOCS: http://dlang.org/template.html#function-templates
says:
On 05/20/2015 04:10 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 13:46:22 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
DOC say `may not have` not `must not have` ;-)
OK, if that's the intent, it needs to be reworded. As it stands, it
looks more like it's saying specialization is not permissible, rather
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 13:46:22 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
DOC say `may not have` not `must not have` ;-)
OK, if that's the intent, it needs to be reworded. As it stands,
it looks more like it's saying specialization is not permissible,
rather than what might be possible. As in:
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 19:20:19 Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On 5/20/2015 6:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I'm using a fairly recent version of dmd master, and it prints out the
address for px in both cases when I compile your code. So, if it's
24 matches
Mail list logo
