The following doesn't compile, I was wondering whether this is a temporary
limitation, bug or by design?
struct Bar
{
int baz;
}
struct Foo
{
Bar bar;
alias bar.baz this; // error
}
By const ref seems reasonable to allow, but by ref is bug prone. Why is it
handy?
Is there a way to export static data from a DLL written in D?
I'd like to write some extension DLLs for a program, but they need to have
certain static data exports to be recognized. I've been able to export
functions, but no data appears in the export table of the DLL.
In MSVC 6 I can do it
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
...
The issue is possibly with ref. There are two reasons to use ref, 1 is
to be able to change the data referenced, 2 is for passing speed.
1 is bad for rvalues. 2 should be ok for rvalues.
If there was a way to signify you only want to use ref for
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Dandan.r.stev...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to export static data from a DLL written in D?
I'd like to write some extension DLLs for a program, but they need to have
certain static data exports to be recognized. I've been able to export
functions, but
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Lutgerlutger.blijdest...@gmail.com wrote:
The following doesn't compile, I was wondering whether this is a temporary
limitation, bug or by design?
struct Bar
{
int baz;
}
struct Foo
{
Bar bar;
alias bar.baz this; // error
}
Problem I would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chad J wrote:
Regarding template mixins, I'm curious, why is the decision to mixin a
template made at the call site and not at the declaration of the
template/mixin?
In other words, why do we write
template foo()
{
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM, div0d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Not sure what the original choice was based on, but what you suggest
looks wrong to me. You aren't necessarily using a template in order to
mix it in somewhere.
With that syntax it looks like you can only use foo as a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM, div0d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
That's what he's suggesting, and it does make sense. When you write a
template, *either* it's meant to be used as a mixin, *or* it's meant
to be
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM, div0d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chad J wrote:
Regarding template mixins, I'm curious, why is the decision to mixin a
template made at the call site and not at the declaration of the
template/mixin?
In
div0 wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM, div0d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
That's what he's suggesting, and it does make sense. When you write a
template, *either* it's meant to be used as a mixin, *or* it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
div0 wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM, div0d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
That's what he's suggesting, and it does make sense. When you
div0 wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
div0 wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM, div0d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
That's what he's suggesting, and it does make sense.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:54:38 -0400, div0 d...@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM, div0d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
That's what he's suggesting, and it does make sense. When you write a
Daniel Keep:
In my own code, I usually record my intent by using inout for
variables I intend to modify and ref for ones which I don't.
Always seemed reasonable to me.
for the compiler they mean the same thing, but inout is being deprecated.
Bye,
bearophile
15 matches
Mail list logo
