How I can synchronize changing of array in the functions with
nothrow? Handmade spinlock or something better?
It's a rather recent feature, there's probably a few bugs. Feel
free to file: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
done:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8856
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:36:59 -0400
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote:
> On Friday, October 19, 2012 20:01:20 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> > On 19-10-2012 08:23, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > > On 2012-10-18 20:51, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> > >> I mean, the 'package' access modifier.
> > >
> > > So did I.
> >
does D fully support using import statements inside functions?
I sometimes get link errors eg:
void fun(){
import mypackage.mymodule;
mypackage.mymodule.myfun(); //will cause link error
}
if you haven't encountered it yet I can provide a simplified test
case.
On Friday, October 19, 2012 20:01:20 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 19-10-2012 08:23, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > On 2012-10-18 20:51, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> >> I mean, the 'package' access modifier.
> >
> > So did I.
> >
> > class Foo
> > {
> >
> > package void foo () {}
> >
> > }
> >
> > Wo
I've filed the following bug: see Issue 8854
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8854)
I'm curious as to what could cause such a bug, which disappears
when doing any of the following seemingly innocuous changes, such
as change a file name, change an import path, removing an
(unused)
Am Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:14:57 +0200
schrieb Andrej Mitrovic :
> Sorry for posting here, but Github doesn't have messaging anymore
> (boo!) and there's no contact button or email anywhere to be found. :)
>
> Johannes, are you still working on gobject introspection? libgit has
> gobject bindings so
On 19-10-2012 08:23, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-10-18 20:51, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
I mean, the 'package' access modifier.
So did I.
class Foo
{
package void foo () {}
}
Would, according to the spec, imply a virtual method. But as Jonathan
said, this is a bug in the spec.
What? Ho
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Does it work? I thought it was not implemented.
>
> Hmm. I don't know what it's current state is. There _is_ a long-standing bug
> on it in bugzilla ( http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143 ) which
> is still open. I had forgo
On Friday, 19 October 2012 at 13:41:53 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-10-19 11:42, Marco Leise wrote:
When you extend the length of an array, it is filled with
the static .init value for the type, which is null here. I
think you'll have to create the objects manually.
foreach (ref foo; a)
On 2012-10-19 11:42, Marco Leise wrote:
When you extend the length of an array, it is filled with
the static .init value for the type, which is null here. I
think you'll have to create the objects manually.
foreach (ref foo; a) foo = new Foo;
Is this possible:
a[] = new Foo;
?
--
/Jacob Ca
Problem solved partially.
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/e7871a01
in structs I use fix length arrays declarations, and alias its to
structs, but not allowed casting to fix length arrays.
I want check array length in compile time
auto opBinary(string op,E)( E[DLen] b ) // fix length array
i
On Friday, 19 October 2012 at 09:36:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 10:59:07 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
> Except that that won't work for int or other built-in types,
> because they lack constructors.
Isn't it possible to modify D and add constructors to bui
On 10/19/12 11:09, m0rph wrote:
> Suppose I have a dynamic array of classes, something like:
>
> class Foo {
> int value;
> }
>
> Foo[] a;
>
> Now I want to resize it and initialize new items with default values, so I do
> following:
>
> a.length = 10;
> a[0].value = 1;
>
> And by executi
Am Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:09:42 +0200
schrieb "m0rph" :
> Suppose I have a dynamic array of classes, something like:
>
> class Foo {
> int value;
> }
>
> Foo[] a;
>
> Now I want to resize it and initialize new items with default
> values, so I do following:
>
> a.length = 10;
> a[0].value =
On Friday, October 19, 2012 10:59:07 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > Except that that won't work for int or other built-in types,
> > because they lack constructors.
>
> Isn't it possible to modify D and add constructors to built-in
> types?
>
> int(10)
Of course, it would be possible.
Suppose I have a dynamic array of classes, something like:
class Foo {
int value;
}
Foo[] a;
Now I want to resize it and initialize new items with default
values, so I do following:
a.length = 10;
a[0].value = 1;
And by executing the last line of code I've got a segmentation
fault. App
Jonathan M Davis:
Except that that won't work for int or other built-in types,
because they lack constructors.
Isn't it possible to modify D and add constructors to built-in
types?
int(10)
Bye,
bearophile
18 matches
Mail list logo
