[Issue 5395] New: Interval literals
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5395
Summary: Interval literals
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-01-01 06:32:05 PST ---
Sometimes it's positive to replace some language feature with good Phobos
implementations (like complex numbers), but language design is an iterative
process, so sometimes it's positive to go the other way too. Tuples and number
intervals are two examples where I think it will be good to add some syntax
sugar back into the front-end. This enhancement request is about the number
intervals.
I suggest for the two following syntaxes to be seen by the compiler as
equivalent, as syntax sugar of each other:
foreach (i; 0 .. 10)
foreach (i; iota(0, 10))
So I suggest the x..y syntax to become first class and to mean
std.range.iota(x,y).
An extension of the interval literal may allow a step value too:
0 .. 10:2
Once present the interval literal becomes useful to remove a () from lazy
expressions, making them more readable:
reduce!max(map!foo(1 .. 1000))
Instead of:
reduce!max(map!foo(iota(1, 1000)))
If the interval literal becomes first class, it's possible to use it for ranged
types, or interval tests too:
if (x in 5 .. 20) {...}
If iota becomes syntax sugar for the ranged sequence, then the compiler is able
to compile better simple code like this:
foreach (i; iota(0, 10, 2)) {...}
See also bug 4603
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4705] Redesign of std.algorithm.max()/min() + mins()/maxs()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4705
--- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-01-01 06:33:02 PST ---
Another example to show why a better max() is useful. The task is ot show how
the number less than 1000 which has the longest hailstone sequence. For the
hailstone see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture
The code, DMD 2.051:
import std.stdio, std.algorithm, std.range, std.typecons;
auto hailstone(int n) {
auto result = [n];
while (n != 1) {
n = n 1 ? n*3 + 1 : n/2;
result ~= n;
}
return result;
}
void main() {
auto r = reduce!max(map!((i){return tuple(hailstone(i).length,
i);})(iota(1, 1000)))[1];
writeln(r);
}
With a max that supports a key function and iterables the line of code in the
main() becomes just:
auto r = max!hailstone(iota(1, 1000));
With the enhancement request 5395 it becomes even more readable:
auto r = max!hailstone(1 .. 1000);
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3804] Recent versions of GNU C Library have execvpe() implemented.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3804 Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||ibuc...@ubuntu.com Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2011-01-01 09:56:04 PST --- OK, closing then. The lack of any configure script makes it impossible to *probe* the system that phobos is being built on anyways... -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5396] New: Invalid code with nested functions in CTFE
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5396
Summary: Invalid code with nested functions in CTFE
Product: D
Version: D1 D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: rob...@octarineparrot.com
--- Comment #0 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2011-01-01
18:54:57 GMT ---
The following code:
void outer(bool b)
{
string inner()
{
if (b)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
pragma(msg, inner());
}
Compiles and evaluates without error, despite the dependence on the runtime
value b.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4494] ICE(cod1.c) Array literal filled with results of void function
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4494 Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@ubuntu.com OS/Version|Windows |All --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2011-01-01 11:21:49 PST --- Changing platform to All (affects Linux too). Similar code: void[] p = [cast(void)42]; As of DMD-2.051, now prints: Internal error: ../ztc/cod1.c 3057 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5397] New: Compiler error on struct with invariant and postblitz
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5397
Summary: Compiler error on struct with invariant and postblitz
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: alex.khm...@gmail.com
--- Comment #0 from Alex Khmara alex.khm...@gmail.com 2011-01-01 13:12:38 PST
---
This code:
module properties;
struct PropertyList {
invariant() {
assert(1);
}
this(this) {
_props = [];
}
string[] _props;
}
gives compiler error:
Error: __result = this is not mutable
Error: __result = this is not an lvalue
Without invariant all works good.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5397] Compiler error on struct with invariant and postblitz
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5397 Alex Khmara alex.khm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Platform|Other |x86 --- Comment #1 from Alex Khmara alex.khm...@gmail.com 2011-01-01 13:14:12 PST --- It seems that I cannot set proper DMD version - It was on DMD 2.0.51, Linux x86 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5398] New: Unterminated doc comment ignored
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5398
Summary: Unterminated doc comment ignored
Product: D
Version: D1 D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: rob...@octarineparrot.com
--- Comment #0 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2011-01-01
21:49:02 GMT ---
When the following is compiled with
dmd -unittest -c Sqlite.d
Sqlite.d:
module Sqlite;
import Database;
class SqliteDatabase
{
public Result!(T) execute(T)()
{
assert(0);
}
}
unittest
{
auto db = new SqliteDatabase();
struct Test
{
}
db.execute!(Test)();
}
Database.d:
module Database;
class Result(T)
{
T[] mResults;
//import tango.util.log.Trace;
import tango.util.log.Log;
size_t length()
{
return mResults.length;
}
}
Log.d:
module Log;
/+/++/
---
dmd compiles without error, when it should complain about the unterminated
documentation comment in Log.d. In LDC this leads to some weird semantic
errors: http://dsource.org/projects/ldc/ticket/447
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5399] New: Return the result of a nonvoid function in a void function
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5399
Summary: Return the result of a nonvoid function in a void
function
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-01-01 13:49:57 PST ---
In D (rightly) you can't return a value different from void inside a void
function. But this code compiles and runs with no errors in DMD 2.051 (bug
found by Daren Scot Wilson):
int foo() { return 1; }
void main() {
return foo();
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5398] Unterminated doc comment ignored
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5398 Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid URL||http://dsource.org/projects ||/ldc/ticket/447 --- Comment #1 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2011-01-01 22:06:36 GMT --- import tango.util.log.Log; = that line should be import Log; obviously, that's a remnant from an old version of the code before I narrowed it down. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2043] Closure outer variables in nested blocks are not allocated/instantiated correctly.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2043
Witold Baryluk bary...@smp.if.uj.edu.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bary...@smp.if.uj.edu.pl
--- Comment #6 from Witold Baryluk bary...@smp.if.uj.edu.pl 2011-01-01
18:20:46 PST ---
I today hit this bug. It really isn't obvious how to workaround this problem.
It is not possible to easly just allocate variable or struct with variable's
value manually, as it still will just by single identifier, and it will at the
end still point to single entity.
Simplified case, which returns array of delegates each printing next integer.
import std.stdio;
alias void delegate() D;
/* do not work, */
auto f(int n) {
auto tab = new D[n];
for (int i = 0; i n; i++) {
// invariant ii = i; // will not help
// struct S { int i_; }; S x = new S; x.i_ = i;
// will also not help, as x is on stack
tab[i] = delegate void() { writefln(i=%d, i); };
// also using nested function, and taking address do not work
}
return tab;
}
void main() {
auto tab = f(10);
foreach (k, ref x; tab) {
writef(%d : , k);
x();
}
}
It currently will print in all cases:
0 : i=10
1 : i=10
2 : i=10
3 : i=10
4 : i=10
5 : i=10
6 : i=10
7 : i=10
8 : i=10
9 : i=10
My current workaround involves looping using recursion (and be sure that
compiler do not make it tail-recursive probably):
/* recursive loop version will work */
auto f2(int n) {
auto tab = new D[n];
void f2r(int i) {
tab[i] = delegate void() { writefln(i=%d, i); };
if (i n-1) {
f2r(i+1); /* recursion */
}
}
f2r(0); /* enter recursion */
return tab;
}
Which will make our constructed delegates work as desired:
0 : i=0
1 : i=1
2 : i=2
3 : i=3
4 : i=4
5 : i=5
6 : i=6
7 : i=7
8 : i=8
9 : i=9
(I tested if this is not just a a coincidence, but overwriting stack by random
values, and it works still correctly. BTW. switch for compiler which will show
what local variables are/will automatically allocated on heap will be usefull).
As of definitive solution, i think invariant which is referenced by escaping
delegate should be allocated on heap, and its addresses should be remembered
immediately in constructed delegate. Other possibility is separate syntax, like
new delegate void() ... , which will make all variables referenced by
delegate a copies of current values of variables with the same names
(considering scoping rules).
Hope this will be helpful for somebody.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5316] std.getopt with associative arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5316 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@puremagic.com|and...@metalanguage.com -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 620] Can't use property syntax with a template function
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=620
Alex Khmara alex.khm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alex.khm...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Alex Khmara alex.khm...@gmail.com 2011-01-01 22:22:42 PST
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Some hacking about showed me that opDispatch has a workaround for this
problem,
by using a two-layer approach:
template opDispatch( string name ) {
auto opDispatch( T... )( T args ) {
// Do something!
}
}
This workaroung is only partial. This code produces Error: s.opDispatch(T...)
has no value.
import std.stdio;
struct S {
template opDispatch( string name ) {
string opDispatch( T... )( T args ) {
return bar;
}
}
}
void main() {
S s;
string str = s.foo;
}
Same if I try auto opDispatch instead of string.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5397] Compiler error on struct with invariant and postblitz
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5397 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2011-01-01 22:26:12 PST --- (In reply to comment #1) It seems that I cannot set proper DMD version - It was on DMD 2.0.51, Linux x86 You should just set version = D2 (the exact release number is useless information). Same issue as bug 3273. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 3273 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3273] Regression(2.031): struct invariant + dtor fails to compile (no line number)
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3273 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alex.khm...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2011-01-01 22:26:12 PST --- *** Issue 5397 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5399] Return the result of a nonvoid function in a void function
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5399
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-01-01 23:00:02 PST ---
This isn't a bug, I was wrong. D2 specs clearly show this is working as
expected:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html
ReturnStatement:
return;
return Expression ;
Expression is allowed even if the function specifies a void return type. The
Expression will be evaluated, but nothing will be returned. If the Expression
has no side effects, and the return type is void, then it is illegal.
Indeed, this too compiles:
void main() {
int x;
return x++;
}
But this is a potentially dangerous corner case in the return rules.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5399] Return the result of a nonvoid function in a void function
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5399 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #2 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-01-01 23:33:12 PST --- It is not a dangerous corner case, it is a deliberate design choice. It is meant to facilitate writing generic code so that the same code can be generated for void and non-void return values. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
