Yao G.:
Is there a way to make this work? Even changing the operator string in
opBinary to - doesn't do nothing. Or those kind of operators can't be
overloaded?
Try opOpAssign.
Bye,
bearophile
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 22:31:38 Yao G. wrote:
Sorry, I sent the message prematurely :( Anyway, here's complete:
Is there a way to make compound assignment operators (-=, +=, *= and
friends) work with D's operator overload regime? I can't make them work.
Look at
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:46:02 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmail.com wrote:
Look at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/operatoroverloading.html (or
even
better, TDPL). The correct function would be opOpAssign. I believe that
the
syntax for += would be
opOpAssign!(+)(args) { }
-
bearophile wrote:
Don:
Do you know what cast(ulong) is doing here?
Turning it from a signalling nan to a quiet nan.
I really really didn't know this. Is this written somewhere in the D docs? :-)
It's the way signalling nans work. _Any_ use of them raises a floating
point exception, then
I'm using dmd v2.048, WinDbg 5.1.
I seem to be having trouble, perhaps i can get this cleared up. I'm trying to
build a new structure type using math overloads (for testing). My asserts are
failing; i need to debug them but can't. I've run 'dmd -gc mysource.d' as per
the site, neither gdb
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 23:49:27 Yao G. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:46:02 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmail.com wrote:
Look at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/operatoroverloading.html (or
even
better, TDPL). The correct function would be opOpAssign. I believe that
the
You could try cv2pdb.
Sorry, I pressed the wrong button so the message was sent to your
email. Reciting:
26.08.2010 1:53, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
I came up with the templates in my initial post. They seem to
work, but I doubt those are legal solutions.
.
If they work, then they are legal :)
How
== Quote from Trass3r (u...@known.com)'s article
You could try cv2pdb.
I'll look it up. I'm trying ddbg, and although it is working so far, there has
to be something better (At least giving it commands and breakpoints)
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 17:27, Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@test.comwrote:
What would be really cool is if we had a property that returned a random
value of any integrated type. And for user-defined types, maybe it would
call a method with a special name. I guess one could make a template
I'll look it up. I'm trying ddbg, and although it is working so far,
there has to be something better (At least giving it commands and
breakpoints)
Isn't ddbg dead?
Your best shot is to debug on Windows using cv2pdb or the upcoming Mago
Debugger plugin with Visual Studio.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 03:50, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Jason Spencer:
Knowing just the # of dimensions won't tell me
the total size or how to index. I need the size of each dimension.
If you create such structs, you do what you want, so it represents a nD
rectangular
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 15:24, Bob Cowdery b...@bobcowdery.plus.com wrote:
I might be on my way :-) .
Good :) I just skimmed through the thread, so I don't know if you're still
using Code::Blocks.
I'm using it, and it highlights D code with no problem. For 10.05, it's in
Settings Editor
Philippe Sigaud:
What you lose is the CT checking that can be done for multiplication or
additions if all dimensions are exposed in the type.
If you want, you may create a second nD array struct where sizes too are CT
values, plus two methods/free functions to convert between the two array
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 14:11, Stanislav Blinov bli...@loniir.ru wrote:
Sorry, I pressed the wrong button so the message was sent to your email.
Reciting:
Does that work for you?
Yes! Beautiful, thanks! That beats hell out of my clumsy templates :)
Your templates are not clumsy, it's
Philippe Sigaud wrote:
That beats hell out of my clumsy templates :)
Your templates are not clumsy, it's typically the way some other PL
would process lists/arrays. I used to write a lot of these. But 6 months
ago, CTFE got seven-leagues boots and right now it's much easier on the
eye to
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 22:41, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Philippe Sigaud:
What you lose is the CT checking that can be done for multiplication or
additions if all dimensions are exposed in the type.
If you want, you may create a second nD array struct where sizes too are
17 matches
Mail list logo
