mimocrocodil 4deni...@gmail.com writes:
I seen what sendmail actually changes they arguments of command line for nice
output of ps ax command.
May be it changes his argc/argv for this?
Yes. Some unix C programs, daemons usually, modify argv to change what ps
shows. It works with D too, I
On 8/20/11 5:13 PM, Sean Eskapp wrote:
Does marking a member function as pure mean that it will return the same
result given the same parameters, or that it will give the same result, given
the same parameters and given the same class/struct members?
The second one, the implicit this parameter
Sean Eskapp:
Does nothrow mean the function itself does not through exceptions, or that the
function body, as well as any called functions, do not throw? I wonder because
allocating new memory inside a @safe nothrow function works, even though I'm
used to new allocations throwing exceptions
== Quote from Timon Gehr (timon.g...@gmx.ch)'s article
On 08/20/2011 06:50 PM, Sean Eskapp wrote:
Since the compiler can clearly tell when a function is not const, safe,
pure,
or nothrow, why can't they just be assumed, unless proven otherwise?
This sort of inference is already done for
On 08/20/2011 08:18 PM, Sean Eskapp wrote:
bearophile:
As far as I know they have decided to make memory overflow errors, so they are
not exceptions, you can't catch them. Other people will confirm this or not.
In this case, how would you go about handling out-of-memory situations? A
systems
== Quote from Timon Gehr (timon.g...@gmx.ch)'s article
On 08/20/2011 08:18 PM, Sean Eskapp wrote:
bearophile:
As far as I know they have decided to make memory overflow errors, so they
are
not exceptions, you can't catch them. Other people will confirm this or not.
In this case, how
On Saturday, August 20, 2011 16:53:51 Sean Eskapp wrote:
== Quote from Timon Gehr (timon.g...@gmx.ch)'s article
On 08/20/2011 06:24 PM, Sean Eskapp wrote:
== Quote from David Nadlinger (s...@klickverbot.at)'s article
On 8/20/11 5:13 PM, Sean Eskapp wrote:
Does marking a member
On Saturday, August 20, 2011 16:50:32 Sean Eskapp wrote:
Since the compiler can clearly tell when a function is not const, safe,
pure, or nothrow, why can't they just be assumed, unless proven otherwise?
As of 2.054, @safe, pure, and nothrow are inferred for delegates and templated
functions.
On Saturday, August 20, 2011 18:18:25 Sean Eskapp wrote:
bearophile:
As far as I know they have decided to make memory overflow errors, so
they are
not exceptions, you can't catch them. Other people will confirm this or not.
In this case, how would you go about handling out-of-memory
On Saturday, August 20, 2011 16:41:01 Sean Eskapp wrote:
Does nothrow mean the function itself does not through exceptions, or that
the function body, as well as any called functions, do not throw? I wonder
because allocating new memory inside a @safe nothrow function works, even
though I'm
10 matches
Mail list logo
