Re: Get current date and time with std.datetime
On Thursday, October 06, 2011 23:31:26 Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Friday, October 07, 2011 08:23:10 Jacob Carlborg wrote: > > On 2011-10-07 08:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > On Friday, October 07, 2011 19:08:33 Joel Christensen wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module > > >> std.datetime. I have a DateTime object, but I can't seem to set > > >> its > > >> properties to the current time. > > >> > > >> Some thing like: > > >> DateTime dateTime; > > >> dateTime = getCurrentDateTime(); > > > > > > http://d-programming-language.org/intro-to-datetime.html > > > > May I suggest that you put an example on top of that article that gets > > the current date and time. > > It's already in the documentation at the top of the module. What I need to > do is put a link to the article in that documetantion. I just added a link to the article to std.datetime, so it'll be there starting with the next release. What I'd _really_ like to see fixed though is the anchor-generation with ddoc so that I can actually properly organize the links at the top of std.datetime. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Get current date and time with std.datetime
On Friday, October 07, 2011 08:23:10 Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2011-10-07 08:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Friday, October 07, 2011 19:08:33 Joel Christensen wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module > >> std.datetime. I have a DateTime object, but I can't seem to set its > >> properties to the current time. > >> > >> Some thing like: > >> DateTime dateTime; > >> dateTime = getCurrentDateTime(); > > > > http://d-programming-language.org/intro-to-datetime.html > > May I suggest that you put an example on top of that article that gets > the current date and time. It's already in the documentation at the top of the module. What I need to do is put a link to the article in that documetantion. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Get current date and time with std.datetime
On 2011-10-07 08:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Friday, October 07, 2011 19:08:33 Joel Christensen wrote: Hi, I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module std.datetime. I have a DateTime object, but I can't seem to set its properties to the current time. Some thing like: DateTime dateTime; dateTime = getCurrentDateTime(); http://d-programming-language.org/intro-to-datetime.html May I suggest that you put an example on top of that article that gets the current date and time. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Get current date and time with std.datetime
On Friday, October 07, 2011 19:08:33 Joel Christensen wrote: > Hi, > > I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module > std.datetime. I have a DateTime object, but I can't seem to set its > properties to the current time. > > Some thing like: > DateTime dateTime; > dateTime = getCurrentDateTime(); http://d-programming-language.org/intro-to-datetime.html
Get current date and time with std.datetime
Hi, I have a program that uses the old time stuff before the module std.datetime. I have a DateTime object, but I can't seem to set its properties to the current time. Some thing like: DateTime dateTime; dateTime = getCurrentDateTime(); -JoelCNZ
Re: Stack Overflow error missing
On Friday, October 07, 2011 05:28:39 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I'm fairly sure this used to give me a stack overflow error:
> void test() {
> test();
> }
>
> void main() {
> test();
> }
>
> Now it only returns exit code -1073741819.
>
> Could this be related to how WinXP managers error reporting? It's
> possible that I have some error reporting service disabled, but I'll
> have to check. Is anyone else getting just the exit code?
On Linux, I'm getting a segmentation fault, the same as I always have gotten
when the stack gets blown. So, this does appear to be a Windows-specific issue.
- Jonathan M Davis
Stack Overflow error missing
I'm fairly sure this used to give me a stack overflow error:
void test() {
test();
}
void main() {
test();
}
Now it only returns exit code -1073741819.
Could this be related to how WinXP managers error reporting? It's
possible that I have some error reporting service disabled, but I'll
have to check. Is anyone else getting just the exit code?
Re: Implicit cast to immutable
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:19:37 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Do you know why this program doesn't compile (with DMD 2.056head)?
immutable(int[]) foo(in int[] x) pure {
return new int[1];
}
void main() {}
It gives:
test.d(2): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (new int[](1u))
of type int[] to immutable(int[])
This program instead compiles (now x is int[2] instead of int[]):
immutable(int[]) foo(in int[2] x) pure {
return new int[1];
}
void main() {}
I think it's a bug.
new should be considered pure, and since it's return value cannot be a
reference to any parameter, it should implicitly cast to immutable.
The fact that changing the parameter to foo makes it compile is a big clue.
Note, this should compile even if foo isn't pure, since new is pure (no
matter what type of function it is in).
-Steve
Re: Implicit cast to immutable
Christophe: > That is very consistent, so I don't think this > should be considered as a bug. There may be an improvement to ask to > make the compiler able to check when the cast to immutable is safe, but > I don't think there is a bug. The compiler already performs such checks, in this case it answers "no" and I don't understand why, I think it's not the right answer. > You would need to have pure delegates to have a real effect, wouldn't > you ? The compiler is already able to infer delegate purity, I think. Bye, bearophile
Re: Implicit cast to immutable
bearophile , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:29961), a écrit :
> Andrej Mitrovic:
>
>> Maybe:
>>
>> immutable(int[]) foo(in int[] x) pure {
>>return new immutable(int[1]);
>> }
>>
>> void main() {}
>
> I'd like to know why the code in my original post doesn't compile. I suspect
> it's a DMD bug, but I am not sure.
The error message tells you why. new int[1] is not castable to immutable
int[] (in a pure function). The solution is to change new int[1] to make
it immutable directly. That is very consistent, so I don't think this
should be considered as a bug. There may be an improvement to ask to
make the compiler able to check when the cast to immutable is safe, but
I don't think there is a bug.
>> Or does this have something to do with implicit casts to immutable for
>> pure functions?
>
> Right.
>
>
>> I'm only vaguely familiar with pure..
>
> I suggest you to use purity more and more in D, because it helps and
> with the recent bug fixes it is also becoming usable in D (but there
> are some significant problems left, example: map/filter are not pure
> yet).
You would need to have pure delegates to have a real effect, wouldn't
you ?
--
Christophe
