On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 22:34:19 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
OK, before this thread devolves into a shouting match, I'd like
to
understand what was the rationale behind this restriction. What
were the
reasons behind not allowing a non-member function to overload an
operator? What are the
On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 17:01:27 UTC, Tommi wrote:
Another way to describe my reasoning...
According to TDPL, if var is a variable of a user-defined type,
then:
++var
gets rewritten as:
var.opUnary!++()
Not always. If user-defined type has an alias this to integer
member, than
The dmd compiler comes with some example code. One of the
examples is for COM.
Does this work for anyone else? The dll registration code is
failing: SetKeyAndValue() failed.
Other output looks good:
OLE 2 initialized
hMod = 268435456
LoadLibraryA() succeeded
pfn = 100033E0, fn =
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 at 06:22:03 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 17:01:27 UTC, Tommi wrote:
Another way to describe my reasoning...
According to TDPL, if var is a variable of a user-defined
type, then:
++var
gets rewritten as:
var.opUnary!++()
Not always. If
On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 19:50:02 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/13/2012 06:02 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
...
Different groups of people have different mind and same things
produce
different sense on them. From my point of view operator
overloading
methods are special functions and not
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 at 07:01:30 UTC, Tommi wrote:
Actually, it seems that alias this has precedence over UFCS.
So, a free function opUnary wouldn't ever suit better than an
actual method opUnary of the thing referred to by that alias
this.
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/d0a4431d
Free function
On Friday, 12 October 2012 at 23:05:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
You can have the variable be private and alias a function which
returns by ref
instead of the variable itself. Something like
class C
{
@property ref inout(Impl) get() inout { return _impl; }
alias get this;
private:
Hey everyone, I'm new to D so bare with me please. I've been
trying to figure out what's up with the strange forward refernce
errors the compiler (DMD 2.060) is giving me. Here's a code
snippet that's generating a forward reference error:
public class AliasTestClass(alias func)
{
On 2012-10-14, 14:28, Martin wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm new to D so bare with me please. I've been trying to
figure out what's up with the strange forward refernce errors the
compiler (DMD 2.060) is giving me. Here's a code snippet that's
generating a forward reference error:
public class
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 at 12:58:24 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On 2012-10-14, 14:28, Martin wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm new to D so bare with me please. I've been
trying to figure out what's up with the strange forward
refernce errors the compiler (DMD 2.060) is giving me. Here's
a code
On 10/14/12, Benjamin Thaut c...@benjamin-thaut.de wrote:
Is there a way to make dmd ignore the default imports and library search
paths inside sc.ini?
See http://dlang.org/dmd-windows.html#sc_ini
On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 20:30 -0700, Charles Hixson wrote:
[…]
I'm not clear on what Fibers are. From Ruby they seem to mean
co-routines, and that doesn't have much advantage. But it also seems as
[…]
I think the
On 14-Oct-12 20:19, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 20:30 -0700, Charles Hixson wrote:
[…]
I'm not clear on what Fibers are. From Ruby they seem to mean
co-routines, and that doesn't have much advantage. But it
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 at 09:40:36 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Is there a way to make dmd ignore the default imports and
library search paths inside sc.ini?
Currently I have to keep two versions of dmd around, one with a
modified sc.ini and one with the original one, which is a bit
I haven't tried to run it, but as a random guess, does the user
your running it as have permissions to write to HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT
?
On 10/14/12 08:13, Maxim Fomin wrote:
The only mentioned reason is to allow writing operator overloading methods
outside type scope - just because somebody (currently two people) consider it
logical to broaden UFCS usage.
It's more than two people... Also, it's not about broadening UFCS
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 at 07:14:25 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
If this request is approved and compiler has opUnary definition
outside type (which suits better then alias
this) such function would hijack alias this.
Free functions cannot and must not ever hijack, i.e. modify
existing
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 at 19:04:22 UTC, Richard Webb wrote:
I haven't tried to run it, but as a random guess, does the user
your running it as have permissions to write to
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT ?
Guess that would be it. Specifically told the program to run as
admin and it works. Should have
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 23:38:48 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
toStringz takes a string (immutable(char)[]), and the GC will not
reclaim immutable data until app exit.
If the GC never collects immutable data which has no references to it until
the app closes, then there's a serious problem.
On Monday, October 15, 2012 00:51:34 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 10/15/12, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
Anything and everything with no references to it any
longer should be up for collection.
I think this is fuzzy territory and it's a good opportunity to
properly document GC
On 10/15/12, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
I'd have to see exactly what TDPL says to comment on that accurately
Maybe I've misread it. On Page 288 it says:
An immutable value is cast in stone: as soon as it's been
initialized, you may as well
consider it has been burned forever
On 10/14/2012 04:36 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 10/15/12, Jonathan M Davisjmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
I'd have to see exactly what TDPL says to comment on that accurately
Maybe I've misread it. On Page 288 it says:
An immutable value is cast in stone: as soon as it's been
initialized,
On Monday, October 15, 2012 01:36:27 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 10/15/12, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
I'd have to see exactly what TDPL says to comment on that accurately
Maybe I've misread it. On Page 288 it says:
An immutable value is cast in stone: as soon as it's been
On 10/15/12, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
snip
Hmm ok, this sheds some light on things.
If a C function takes a const pointer and has no documentation about
ownership then maybe it's a good guess to say it won't store that
pointer anywhere and will only use it as a temporary?
On Monday, October 15, 2012 02:04:44 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 10/15/12, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
snip
Hmm ok, this sheds some light on things.
If a C function takes a const pointer and has no documentation about
ownership then maybe it's a good guess to say it won't
On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14-Oct-12 20:19, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 20:30 -0700, Charles Hixson wrote:
[…]
I'm not clear on what Fibers are. From Ruby
On 10/15/12 02:14, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Johannes, are you still working on gobject introspection? libgit has
gobject bindings so I remembered you mentioning something about
working on gobject for D.
FWIW gobject bindings are part of my gtk2 bindings too;
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:53:48 -0700
Charles Hixson charleshi...@earthlink.net wrote:
If std.stream is being deprecated, what is the correct way to deal
with file BOMs. This is particularly concerning utf8 files, which I
understand to be a bit problematic, as there isn't, actually, a utf8
I have an array of reals that I want to format with writefln, but the
precision field needs to be passed in a variable. For a single real, it
would be writefln(%.*f, precision, x); but when I try this:
int precision = ...;
real[] array = ...;
writefln(%(%.*f, %),
On 10/14/2012 10:43 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I have an array of reals that I want to format with writefln, but the
precision field needs to be passed in a variable. For a single real, it
would be writefln(%.*f, precision, x); but when I try this:
int precision = ...;
real[] array =
30 matches
Mail list logo
