On 4/3/13, Timothee Cour thelastmamm...@gmail.com wrote:
dmd -o- does not write executable
is this a bug or intended?
Intended. No object files = no way to link the executable.
How can I find out which line of code is causing a thread to
throw a LinkTerminated? Every time I catch one, it always says
std\concurrency.d(262), which is just the LinkTerminated
constructor.
Thanks,
Josh
basic idea.
---
T x;
T* px = new T(x);
---
int x
int* px = new int(x); // fails
---
I need to do this for structs and basic types. What's the
standard way to do this?
Hello all,
Can anyone advise on where things stand with PyD, in terms of Python version(s)
supported, D version(s) supported, general up-to-dateness and stability?
The writeups on the Dsource page http://pyd.dsource.org/ look like they
haven't been maintained in a long time, so I presume the
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 11:05:06 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
basic idea.
---
T x;
T* px = new T(x);
---
int x
int* px = new int(x); // fails
---
I need to do this for structs and basic types. What's the
standard way to do this?
Do you need to use new? i.e. do you need the variable to
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 14:47:22 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 11:05:06 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
basic idea.
---
T x;
T* px = new T(x);
---
int x
int* px = new int(x); // fails
---
I need to do this for structs and basic types. What's the
standard way to do
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 02:28:55 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 01:30:19 UTC, ixid wrote:
How can you call the new syntax better? You assign arrays'
lengths in the opposite to that that you access them. It's a
horrible design mistake.
Unfortunately, I have to
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 15:25:22 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 14:47:22 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 11:05:06 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
basic idea.
---
T x;
T* px = new T(x);
---
int x
int* px = new int(x); // fails
---
I need to do
On 04/02/2013 07:28 PM, Chris Cain wrote: On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at
01:30:19 UTC, ixid wrote:
What's a int*? It's a pointer to an int. Why isn't it a *int, then?
I wonder whether it would complicate syntax? (But * already has so many
meanings that maybe that would not be too bad.)
How
On 4/3/13, John Colvin john.loughran.col...@gmail.com wrote:
note: this is not C malloc, the memory is requested from and
managed by the GC.
Shouldn't that call be GC.malloc? I don't see a module-scoped malloc
function anywhere except the C one in core.stdc.stdlib.
On 04/03/2013 08:53 AM, John Colvin wrote:
import core.memory : malloc;
T x;
T* pt = cast(T*)malloc(T.sizeof);
*pt = x;
note: this is not C malloc, the memory is requested from and managed by
the GC.
That assignment will fail in general when the left-hand side has those
undetermined
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 07:05:05 -0400, Tobias Pankrath tob...@pankrath.net
wrote:
basic idea.
---
T x;
T* px = new T(x);
---
int x
int* px = new int(x); // fails
---
I need to do this for structs and basic types. What's the standard way
to do this?
A crude but easy way to do this:
int *px
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 16:13:02 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 4/3/13, John Colvin john.loughran.col...@gmail.com wrote:
note: this is not C malloc, the memory is requested from and
managed by the GC.
Shouldn't that call be GC.malloc? I don't see a module-scoped
malloc
function
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 16:39:18 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
That assignment will fail in general when the left-hand side
has those undetermined bits.
Could you expand on this? I don't fully understand.
On 04/03/2013 10:19 AM, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 16:39:18 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
That assignment will fail in general when the left-hand side has those
undetermined bits.
Could you expand on this? I don't fully understand.
In short, there is no object on the
Thank you for the answers, helped a lot!
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 15:44:52 UTC, ixid wrote:
I wasn't arguing for the old style, the new declarations should
have read from left to right so [6][5][string]int and then you
access the elements in the same order that you assigned them,
that seems far less confusing and leaves less
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 15:56:31 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I wonder whether it would complicate syntax? (But * already has
so many meanings that maybe that would not be too bad.)
I doubt it, but maybe. Plenty of languages exist that do a
left-to-right reading of types and they seem to
On 04/03/2013 05:38 AM, Josh wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 April 2013 at 20:50:16 UTC, Mike Wey wrote:
On 04/02/2013 02:38 PM, Josh wrote:
On Sunday, 31 March 2013 at 14:21:50 UTC, Mike Wey wrote:
On 03/30/2013 05:42 PM, Josh wrote:
On Saturday, 30 March 2013 at 16:17:22 UTC, Mike Wey wrote:
On
On 04/03/2013 03:23 AM, Alexandr Druzhinin wrote:
03.04.2013 4:13, Mike Wey пишет:
GtkD relies on gtkglext-3 for it's openGL support it can be found here:
https://github.com/tdz/gtkglext
It currently isn't included in the Gtk-runtime installer, and as far as
i know there aren't any binaries
Hi.
Yes, the bitbucket repo is up to date (or was, a month ago. I've been a
bit busy..).
It looks like you want to embed python into D, in which case the
situation is better than the main page suggests. Pyd supports
* CPython - 2.4 through 3.2
* dmd 2.060+
* ldc {whatever is based on dmdfe
Hi,
I am using DMD 2.062 on Windows 7 64-bit.
I am writing performance critical functions that need switch
statements to use an indirect jump table... current I'm analysing
the assembly dump, and the code is compiled to nested ifs
instead. This happens with switch and final switch. Is there
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 03:06:44 Steve Kucera wrote:
Hi,
I am using DMD 2.062 on Windows 7 64-bit.
I am writing performance critical functions that need switch
statements to use an indirect jump table... current I'm analysing
the assembly dump, and the code is compiled to nested ifs
Steve Kucera:
I am using DMD 2.062 on Windows 7 64-bit.
I am writing performance critical functions that need switch
statements to use an indirect jump table... current I'm
analysing the assembly dump, and the code is compiled to nested
ifs instead. This happens with switch and final
On 04/03/2013 05:58 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Somehow I still haven't gotten around to building gdc yet, but
supporting gdc for embedding python would just be a matter of updating
the CeleriD configurations and ensuring everything links. Might as well
do that tonight. Stay tuned.
Actually,
25 matches
Mail list logo
