On 12/04/2012 06:42 PM, js.mdnq wrote:
> One thing I've always struggled with in oop is how to deal with
> storing generic types.
>
> A very simple example is, suppose you had to design a way to
> store generic types.
>
> class myGtype(T) { }
>
> ...
>
> myGType[] gcollection; // should store vari
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 10:05:16 UTC, Nathan M. Swan wrote:
I've never used ODBC before, but a quick scan of the MSDN docs
suggests that you should use SQL_C_WCHAR instead, maybe using
some D wstring functions too.
BTW, convert sql.ptr -> std.string.toStringz(sql); this is good
pract
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 10:05:16 UTC, Nathan M. Swan wrote:
I've never used ODBC before, but a quick scan of the MSDN docs
suggests that you should use SQL_C_WCHAR instead, maybe using
some D wstring functions too.
BTW, convert sql.ptr -> std.string.toStringz(sql); this is good
pract
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 17:43:21 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
Well TDPL claims multiple alias this is allowed so in some
distant future it maybe possible for Varaint to alias this to
all built-in types.
Maybe
I remember back when I was originally reading about C++ and
overloadin
One thing I've always struggled with in oop is how to deal with
storing generic types.
A very simple example is, suppose you had to design a way to
store generic types.
class myGtype(T) { }
...
myGType[] gcollection; // should store various types such as
myGtype!int, myGtype!myobj, etc.., pos
One thing I've always struggled with in oop is how to deal with
storing generic types.
A very simple example is, suppose you had to design a way to
store generic types.
class myGtype(T) { }
...
myGType[] gcollection; // should store various types such as
myGtype!int, myGtype!myobj, etc.., pos
One thing I've always struggled with in oop is how to deal with
storing generic types.
A very simple example is, suppose you had to design a way to
store generic types.
class myGtype(T) { }
...
myGType[] gcollection; // should store various types such as
myGtype!int, myGtype!myobj, etc..,
One thing I've always struggled with in oop is how to deal with
storing generic types.
A very simple example is, suppose you had to design a way to
store generic types.
class myGtype(T) { }
...
myGType[] gcollection; // should store various types such as
myGtype!int, myGtype!myobj, etc.., pos
On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 23:28:25 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 12/4/2012 10:40 PM, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
> > On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 21:43:09 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> >> Well TDPL claims multiple alias this is allowed so in some distant
> >> future it maybe possible for Varaint to alias
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 16:53:33 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
Thanks, I simply imported the modules into the project and I
guess visual D added them to be compiled in on the command
line. For now this will work fine. Maybe eventually I'll write
a utility that will build up a command line to in
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 17:43:21 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
Well TDPL claims multiple alias this is allowed so in some
distant future it maybe possible for Varaint to alias this to
all built-in types.
Maybe
I remember back when I was originally reading about C++ and
overloadin
On 12/04/2012 04:12 PM, deed wrote:
interface I
{
// ...
bool opEquals(I i);
}
class C : I
{
// ...
bool opEquals(I i)
{
return true;
}
}
void main()
{
I i1 = new C;
I i2 = new C;
assert(i1 == i2); // Assertion failure
assert(i1 != i2); // Passes, although it's the opposite of what I want...
}
interface I
{
bool opEquals(I i);
}
class C : I
{
bool opEquals(I i)
{
return true;
}
}
void main()
{
I i1 = new C;
I i2 = new C;
assert(i1 == i2); // Assertino failure
assert(i1 != i2); // Passes, although it's the opposite of
what I want..
}
What's
interface I
{
// ...
bool opEquals(I i);
}
class C : I
{
// ...
bool opEquals(I i)
{
return true;
}
}
void main()
{
I i1 = new C;
I i2 = new C;
assert(i1 == i2); // Assertion failure
assert(i1 != i2); // Passes, although it's the opposite of
what
This article goes over a Nullable/Optional/Maybe implementation
for C#.
http://twistedoakstudios.com/blog/Post1130_when-null-is-not-enough-an-option-type-for-c
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/14930f/when_null_is_not_enough_an_option_type_for_c/
It seems to be similar to that of st
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 17:43:21 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
Well TDPL claims multiple alias this is allowed so in some
distant future it maybe possible for Varaint to alias this to
all built-in types.
Maybe
I remember back when I was originally reading about C++ and
overloadin
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 17:43:21 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
Well TDPL claims multiple alias this is allowed so in some
distant future it maybe possible for Varaint to alias this to
all built-in types.
Maybe
I remember back when I was originally reading about C++ and
overloadin
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 17:43:21 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
Well TDPL claims multiple alias this is allowed so in some
distant future it maybe possible for Varaint to alias this to
all built-in types.
Maybe
I remember back when i was originally reading about C++ and
overloadin
12/4/2012 10:40 PM, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 21:43:09 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Well TDPL claims multiple alias this is allowed so in some distant
future it maybe possible for Varaint to alias this to all built-in types.
That would be pretty hideous IMHO. There's a r
On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 21:43:09 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> Well TDPL claims multiple alias this is allowed so in some distant
> future it maybe possible for Varaint to alias this to all built-in types.
That would be pretty hideous IMHO. There's a reason that D eschews implicit
conversions i
On 2012-12-04 13:59, Era Scarecrow wrote:
It also doesn't seem like it would be difficult to add, only 'auto'
would cause any real errors (as it's not a known type it can return).
It has been suggested before, overriding on the return type. I has more
problems that one might think first.
12/4/2012 4:08 PM, Jacob Carlborg пишет:
On 2012-12-04 08:48, Era Scarecrow wrote:
A thought's been going through my head for a while now. I wonder about
template return values. Function signatures are usually the inputs and
NOT the return type. However for writing a variant type could be so v
BTW you can do:
class myclass_custom(T = int) {}
alias myclass_custom!int myclass;
Then use myclass.whatever and you get int. If you want a custom
type then, you'd use the other name (myclass_custom!ubyte for
instance)
On 12/03/2012 08:31 PM, js.mdnq wrote:
I created a .d file having a class with the modules tag at the
top and everything public. I put it in a dir and used the -I flag
to include the path. When I import the file I get an undefined
method.
I had written a short chapter about that topic:
http:
How can I create a default type so that I can call it like
myclass.myfunc()?
Can't do that. Best you can do is myclass!().myfunc, then it will
use the default type (write it is (T = int) bw) but you have to
put in the !() to actually use the template.
There's a patch for the compiler to chan
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 07:17:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 04:31:40 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
I created a .d file having a class with the modules tag at the
top and everything public. I put it in a dir and used the -I
flag
to include the path. When I import the fi
I have a class
static class myclass(T)
{
static void myfunc();
}
which I have to call like myclass!Q.myfunc();
How can I create a default type so that I can call it like
myclass.myfunc()?
I've tried
static class myclass(T = int) and (alias T = int), neither worked.
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 16:42:21 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 16:34:50 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
class myclass {
int ID;
}
Try something like this:
class myclass {
typeof(uniqueID!T.Get()) ID;
this() {
ID = uniqueID!T.Get();
}
}
The typeof(expr..
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 16:34:50 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
class myclass {
int ID;
}
Try something like this:
class myclass {
typeof(uniqueID!T.Get()) ID;
this() {
ID = uniqueID!T.Get();
}
}
The typeof(expr...) can be used anywhere a type can be used.
I have a static class that generates unique ID's. The id's are
hardcoded as ints.
I would like to make this extensible and allow for other integer
numeric values to be(byte, ulong, etc...).
I can simply make the static class generic without issues.
The problem is the return type of the Get I
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 12:48:57 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Era Scarecrow:
So then in theory
Variant v;
int i = v.getValue; //calls getValue!int()
Meant it to be long i, but the idea is the same.
I think this is not possible in D.
This seems possible:
auto i = v.getValue!int;
Inde
Era Scarecrow:
So then in theory
Variant v;
int i = v.getValue; //calls getValue!int()
I think this is not possible in D.
This seems possible:
auto i = v.getValue!int;
Bye,
bearophile
On 2012-12-04 08:48, Era Scarecrow wrote:
A thought's been going through my head for a while now. I wonder about
template return values. Function signatures are usually the inputs and
NOT the return type. However for writing a variant type could be so very
useful. So unless I've misunderstood,
On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 07:59:40 UTC, Sam Hu wrote:
Greetings!
Any help would be much appreicated in advance as I've really
struggled for quite long time!
I wrote a class wrapper for MS ODBC Access database.When I try
to run query on an Access database file,all fields contains
Englis
Greetings!
Any help would be much appreicated in advance as I've really
struggled for quite long time!
I wrote a class wrapper for MS ODBC Access database.When I try to
run query on an Access database file,all fields contains English
character are fine with the result,but for those Asian cha
35 matches
Mail list logo
