Re: How to deprecate member function from outside?
You're right it did define two functions same signature and no compile error, heh
Re: How to deprecate member function from outside?
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:33:14 +, Dru wrote: > The first example shows that it is possible to deprecate a function > separately from it's definition. No, it doesn't. You declared two *different* functions. One was deprecated; the other wasn't. > I want to know if it is possible to "fix" the second example? (deprecate > a member function separately from it's definition) No. All functions must be deprecated where you declare them.
Is InputRange intentionally more restrictive than isInputRange?
I recently required a function to return an input range over some base element type E. I was under the impression that this is exactly what the interfaces in std.range.interface are for but found that these are more restrictive than the checks from std.range.primitives. In particular, isInputRange(R) only requires R to implement front, empty and popFront, while InputRange!E requires moveFront and opApply in addition. To me this was unexpected and seems inconsistent, but maybe there's a good reason for that. Can someone explain whether (and why) this is intentional.
Polymorphic hashOf
If I want to include the class type (TypeInfo) inside a class
instance hash, is the following snippet a good `@safe pure
nothrow @nogc`-solution?:
import core.internal.hash : hashOf;
/** Hash that distinguishes `Expr(X)` from `NounExpr(X)`. */
hash_t hashOfPolymorphic(Class)(Class aClassInstance) @trusted
pure nothrow @nogc
if (is(Class == class))
{
assert(Class.alignof == 8);
return (cast(hash_t)(cast(void*)typeid(Class)) >> 3) ^
hashOf(aClassInstance);
}
class Thing
{
}
class Expr : Thing
{
@safe pure nothrow @nogc:
alias Data = string;
this(Data data)
{
this.data = data;
}
@property override hash_t toHash() const @safe pure nothrow
@nogc
{
return hashOf(data);
}
Data data;
}
class NounExpr : Expr
{
@safe pure nothrow @nogc:
this(Data data)
{
super(data);
}
@property override hash_t toHash() const @safe pure nothrow
@nogc
{
return hashOf(data);
}
}
class Year : Thing
{
@safe pure nothrow @nogc:
alias Data = long;
@property override hash_t toHash() const @safe pure nothrow
@nogc
{
return hashOf(data);
}
Data data;
}
@safe pure nothrow unittest
{
auto car1 = new Expr("car");
auto car2 = new Expr("car");
auto bar1 = new Expr("bar");
auto ncar = new NounExpr("car");
void testEqual() @safe pure nothrow @nogc
{
assert(hashOf(car1) == hashOf(car2));
assert(hashOfPolymorphic(car1) ==
hashOfPolymorphic(car2));
}
void testDifferent1() @safe pure nothrow @nogc
{
assert(hashOf(car1) != hashOf(bar1));
assert(hashOfPolymorphic(car1) !=
hashOfPolymorphic(bar1));
}
void testDifferent2() @safe pure nothrow @nogc
{
assert(hashOf(car1) == hashOf(ncar));
assert(hashOfPolymorphic(car1) !=
hashOfPolymorphic(ncar));
}
testEqual();
testDifferent1();
testDifferent2();
}
Re: How to deprecate member function from outside?
Thanks for the reply I will try to explain what I mean: The first example shows that it is possible to deprecate a function separately from it's definition. The second example tries the same for a member function but it fails with a compile error. I want to know if it is possible to "fix" the second example? (deprecate a member function separately from it's definition)
Re: How to deprecate member function from outside?
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 18:55:47 +, Dru wrote:
> I would like to use "deprecated" on a member function, but do it from a
> separate file
>
> this works:
> ///
> void func() {}
>
> deprecated {
>void func();
> }
You're defining two functions, presumably in two different modules and
with two different fully qualified names. One function is deprecated but
has no body, so you will get a deprecation warning and a linker error if
you try using it. One function is not deprecated and has a body, so you'll
get no errors if you try using it.
If, on the other hand, you define both the non-deprecated and deprecated
functions in the same file, and you try using them, you'll get an error
saying that the function call matches multiple functions.
How to deprecate member function from outside?
Hi,
I would like to use "deprecated" on a member function, but do it
from a separate file
this works:
///
void func() {}
deprecated {
void func();
}
this doesn't work:
class C{
void func() {}
}
deprecated {
void C.func();
}
I get: Error: semicolon expected, not .
Thanks
Re: Mixin operator 'if' directly
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 10:11:23 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 03:44:09 UTC, Timoses wrote:
Awesome hack!
Being a hack, it would be even nicer if it worked ouf of the
box:
mixin template foo(bool b)
{
int _impl() { writeln(b); return int.init; }
int _ipml2 = _impl();
}
vs
mixin template foo(bool b)
{
writeln(b);
}
I think this is the closest we can come to it:
mixin template Execute(alias p)
{
auto __execute__()
{
p();
return 0;
}
auto __unused__ = __execute__();
}
mixin template MyTemplate(int a)
{
mixin Execute!({
import std.stdio : writeln;
writeln(a);
});
}
void main()
{
mixin MyTemplate!10;
}
One more line can be saved using a lambda to wrap the alias:
template ExpressionStatement(alias p)
{
const __unused__ = {p(); return 0;}();
}
Also i prefer the name `ExpressionStatement` to `Execute` because
this describes exactly what the template does and define its
limits at the same time.
And congrats to Neia Neutuladh for this find.
Re: Mixin operator 'if' directly
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 03:44:09 UTC, Timoses wrote:
Awesome hack!
Being a hack, it would be even nicer if it worked ouf of the
box:
mixin template foo(bool b)
{
int _impl() { writeln(b); return int.init; }
int _ipml2 = _impl();
}
vs
mixin template foo(bool b)
{
writeln(b);
}
I think this is the closest we can come to it:
mixin template Execute(alias p)
{
auto __execute__()
{
p();
return 0;
}
auto __unused__ = __execute__();
}
mixin template MyTemplate(int a)
{
mixin Execute!({
import std.stdio : writeln;
writeln(a);
});
}
void main()
{
mixin MyTemplate!10;
}
Re: Some Fundamental Paradigm Questions
Thanks, Dennis and H.S. for the well-thought-out and comprehensive replies.
Re: Mixin operator 'if' directly
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 03:44:09 UTC, Timoses wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 at 15:40:50 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:12:14 +, bauss wrote:
Or while instantiating it:
mixin template foo()
{
int _ignoreme()
{
if (readln.strip == "abort") throw new AbortException;
return 1;
}
int _alsoIgnoreMe = _ignoreme();
}
void main()
{
mixin foo;
}
Awesome hack!
Being a hack, it would be even nicer if it worked ouf of the
box:
mixin template foo(bool b)
{
int _impl() { writeln(b); return int.init; }
int _ipml2 = _impl();
}
vs
mixin template foo(bool b)
{
writeln(b);
}
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19506
Re: How to reuse the space of RAM of an array of strings?
On Friday, 21 December 2018 at 22:31:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 12/21/18 3:41 PM, Giovanni Di Maria wrote: [...] Note: alloca is a builtin intrinsic, so I wouldn't use that as a function name. Don't think it's affecting your program, but I wanted to point that out. [...] This does NOT free the ram, it simply resets vec to null. If you want to free the memory, use GC.free(vec.ptr); vec = null; [...] Note, this allocates a lot of smaller arrays on its way up to the really big array. You are better off doing: vec.reserve(5_000_000); which will pre-allocate the capacity needed. This will make you only allocate once. -Steve Hi Steve Ok, thank you very much. Ciao Giovanni
