On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 7:46:42 PM MDT Joel via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> I think the if without static is still static, since it's part of
> the function name part, or so (outside of the curly bracket
> scope).
if on a template (or on a templated function) is a template constraint, in
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 17:42:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 8:35:31 AM MDT Joel via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
Yeah. static if will compile in the code in that branch based
on whether the condition is true, whereas if without the static
will branch
Any known workaround for this most recent issue on macOS Sonoma?
The file I'm compiling contains a blank main() without any
imports but this error shows up on everything I've attempted to
compile since upgrading to Sonoma.
(dmd-2.105.2) confuzzled@test ~ % dmd add
ld: multiple errors: symbol
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 20:22:30 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 19:57:06 UTC, christian.koestlin
wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:55:43 UTC, Andrey Zherikov
wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 18:46:14 UTC, christian.koestlin
wrote:
[...]
Slightly
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 19:57:06 UTC, christian.koestlin
wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:55:43 UTC, Andrey Zherikov
wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 18:46:14 UTC, christian.koestlin
wrote:
[...]
Slightly improved:
```d
import std;
[...]
Thanks .. the thing with ref result
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:55:43 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 18:46:14 UTC, christian.koestlin
wrote:
[...]
Slightly improved:
```d
import std;
[...]
Thanks .. the thing with ref result is very clever!
Should `ref result` be `return result`?
Kind regards,
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:29:49 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
More importantly, is there a priority order? Because in our
last example, when we leave a single overload, all features are
executed through the ref opIndex except the bit:
The spec says:
If an index expression can be rewritten
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:09:55 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
At the very least, the spec should do a better job of
documenting when the compiler will try a fallback and when it
won't.
Who will be the hero and add the documentation?
More importantly, is there a priority order? Because
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 17:05:46 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
```d
void main()
{
S s = 0;
{
scope int[] __r3 = s.opIndex()[];
ulong __key4 = 0LU;
for (; __key4 < __r3.length; __key4 += 1LU)
{
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 17:52:20 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 16:45:39 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
OK, so it's not as bad as I thought, but surely the compiler
should recognize that `opIndexAssign(val, idx)` doesn't work,
but `opIndex(idx) = val` does?
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 16:45:39 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
OK, so it's not as bad as I thought, but surely the compiler
should recognize that `opIndexAssign(val, idx)` doesn't work,
but `opIndex(idx) = val` does?
Maybe. On the other hand, if you make a typo in the body of your
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 8:35:31 AM MDT Joel via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Oh, I found,
> ```d
> static if (isIntegral!T)
> ```
> seems to work.
Yeah. static if will compile in the code in that branch based on whether the
condition is true, whereas if without the static will branch at
On 10/3/23 11:12 AM, Joel wrote:
The following program crashes, but doesn’t if I change (see title) T[]
to auto. The program doesn’t even use that method/function. What’s the
story?
It's a stack overflow.
when doing foreach on your type, the compiler *always* uses a slice
first if it
On 10/3/23 12:09 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 13:07:00 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Now, you can define a further `opIndexAssign(T val, size_t idx)`.
However, now you lose capabilities like `a[0]++`, which I don't think
has a possibility of implementing using an
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 13:07:00 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Now, you can define a further `opIndexAssign(T val, size_t
idx)`. However, now you lose capabilities like `a[0]++`, which
I don't think has a possibility of implementing using an
`opIndex` operator, and it would be
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 15:12:34 UTC, Joel wrote:
The following program crashes, but doesn’t if I change (see
title) T[] to auto. The program doesn’t even use that
method/function. What’s the story?
```d
// Adding program - literal functions
import std;
struct List(T) {
class Node
The following program crashes, but doesn’t if I change (see
title) T[] to auto. The program doesn’t even use that
method/function. What’s the story?
```d
// Adding program - literal functions
import std;
struct List(T) {
class Node {
T data;
Node next;
this(T
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 14:06:37 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 11:43:46 UTC, Joel wrote:
I’ve got a struct that has a method that adds numbers
together. I want to do something like this, static if
(isInteger!T) … but it isn’t working. static if (is(T==int))
works for
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 11:43:46 UTC, Joel wrote:
I’ve got a struct that has a method that adds numbers together.
I want to do something like this, static if (isInteger!T) … but
it isn’t working. static if (is(T==int)) works for one integer
type.
```d
struct List(T) {
auto addUp()
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 20:42:14 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 20:34:11 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
In an old version (for example, v2.0.83), the code you
implemented in the places where Slice is written above works
as desired. In the most current versions, the
I’ve got a struct that has a method that adds numbers together. I
want to do something like this, static if (isInteger!T) … but it
isn’t working. static if (is(T==int)) works for one integer type.
```d
struct List(T) {
auto addUp()
If (isInteger!T) {
(Add numbers)
21 matches
Mail list logo
