On Thursday, 23 October 2014 at 05:17:14 UTC, Shriramana Sharma
via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Hi Jonathan and thanks again for your kind replies.
On 10/23/14, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
That will result in a move operation. No copying will take
place.
And it technically,
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 19:44:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The only exception would be if the compiler determines that the
lvalue in question is never used after that call, in which
case, it might just move the object rather than copy it.
There's an additional restriction: local va
Hi Jonathan and thanks again for your kind replies.
On 10/23/14, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> That will result in a move operation. No copying will take place.
> And it technically, it may not actually move anything it all and
> just use the object where it's initially constr
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 19:13:58 UTC, Shriramana Sharma
via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Hello people. I'm once more looking at D since I participated
here a
bit last year. Since I'm still not 100% sure about committing
myself
to using D i.o. C++ for my work, I'd really like to resurrect
Hello people. I'm once more looking at D since I participated here a
bit last year. Since I'm still not 100% sure about committing myself
to using D i.o. C++ for my work, I'd really like to resurrect this
thread to clear my lingering doubts (the full thread is at
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman
Thanks Jonathan and Ali for all those clarifications.
--
Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा
On 05/31/2013 04:45 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> And again, sorry if I'm being dumb, but is the proposed inout syntax
> intended to fix this problem or some other problem?
Think of 'inout' as a placeholder for one of the following three:
- const
- immutable
- (no const, nor immutable)
inout
On Saturday, June 01, 2013 05:15:22 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> > So what is the syntax that accepts rvalues and yet does not make a
> > copy of the input object? I mean, as Ali says OK profiling is
> > preferable to find out where exactly
On Saturday, June 01, 2013 05:11:44 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> > In D, const ref does not accept rvalues (unlike C++'s const &).
>
> So what is the syntax that accepts rvalues and yet does not make a
> copy of the input object?
If you h
On Saturday, June 01, 2013 04:39:07 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> > Certainly,
> > for anything that's small enough to fit in a register, it's likely to be
> > faster to pass by value.
>
> So pardon my ignorance, but a pair which only contai
On 05/31/2013 04:41 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
>> In D, const ref does not accept rvalues (unlike C++'s const &).
>
> So what is the syntax that accepts rvalues and yet does not make a
> copy of the input object?
I think there has b
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> So what is the syntax that accepts rvalues and yet does not make a
> copy of the input object? I mean, as Ali says OK profiling is
> preferable to find out where exactly passing by value is more
> efficient than passing by const ref, but I
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> In D, const ref does not accept rvalues (unlike C++'s const &).
So what is the syntax that accepts rvalues and yet does not make a
copy of the input object? I mean, as Ali says OK profiling is
preferable to find out where exactly passing
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Certainly,
> for anything that's small enough to fit in a register, it's likely to be
> faster
> to pass by value.
So pardon my ignorance, but a pair which only contains two doubles --
it would fit in a CPU register? How about a bezier cl
On Friday, May 31, 2013 23:25:02 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 17:50:33 UTC, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> > Sorry but I still don't get it -- if a default constructor is
> > disallowed for struct-s by the language itself, why should I
> > have to
> > *tell* the compiler to disable
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 17:50:33 UTC, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Sorry but I still don't get it -- if a default constructor is
disallowed for struct-s by the language itself, why should I
have to
*tell* the compiler to disable it?
The compiler always provides a default constructor (maybe not
On Friday, May 31, 2013 23:19:57 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> > However, :) if you are going to make a copy of the argument anyway, always
> > take a struct by-value. That works with both lvalue and rvalue arguments
> > and in the case of rvalues, you will get the automatic move semantics.
> >
> > M
On 05/31/2013 10:49 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
>> struct Pair {
>> double x = 10.75;
>> double y = 20.25;
>>
>> // Default constructor disabled
>> @disable this();
>>
>> // Users must use another constructor:
>> this(double x, double y) { this.x = x; this.y = y; }
Thanks to all who explained the various issues. Some more questions:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> What the error message is saying is that you can declare it just to disable
> its use:
>
> struct Pair {
> double x = 10.75;
> double y = 20.25;
>
> // Default co
On 05/31/2013 02:40 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>>> double x,y ;
>>> this () {}
>>
>> That is not allowed. In D, every type has the .init property, which
is its
>> default value.
>
> Hm can you clarify that a bit? If I actually tr
On Friday, May 31, 2013 15:10:01 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> >> Consider a function that operates on a pair:
> >> double abs2 ( pair a ) { return a.x * a.x + a.y * a.y ; }
> >> In C++ the function signature would be: double abs2 ( const pair &
Shriramana Sharma:
Wouldn't p1.y actually be NaN and not 0?
Right. You can verify it with a writeln.
Bye,
bearophile
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> struct Pair {
> double x, y;
> }
>
> void main()
> {
> auto p0 = Pair();
> auto p1 = Pair(1.5);// only p1.y is 0
Wouldn't p1.y actually be NaN and not 0?
--
Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>>double x,y ;
>>this () {}
>
> That is not allowed. In D, every type has the .init property, which is its
> default value.
Hm can you clarify that a bit? If I actually try it I get:
pair.d(14): Error: constructor pair.pair.this defaul
On 05/30/2013 10:36 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> struct pair {
It is more common to start type names with a capital letter: Pair.
>double x,y ;
>this () {}
That is not allowed. In D, every type has the .init property, which is
its default value.
>this (double x, double y) { th
Hello people.
I have a pair type defined as :
struct pair {
double x,y ;
this () {}
this (double x, double y) { this.x = x ; this.y = y ; }
}
Consider a function that operates on a pair:
double abs2 ( pair a ) { return a.x * a.x + a.y * a.y ; }
In C++ the function signature would be: dou
26 matches
Mail list logo
