On Saturday, 20 January 2018 at 04:09:01 UTC, Joe wrote:
extern(C) char * [2] pvs;
foreach (i, val; paramValues)
pvs[i] = cast(char *)toStringz(val);
And then use "cast(const char **)pvs" for the paramValues
argument.
A slight improvement here that removes the need for any casts
On Saturday, 13 January 2018 at 05:28:17 UTC, Joe wrote:
Going beyond the connection, there are various other libpq
functions that use a similar pattern of values passed using
multiple parallel C arrays, e.g.,
PGresult *PQexecParams(PGconn *conn,
const char *command,
On Friday, January 19, 2018 10:11:36 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Fortunately this is not the case. However, the static variable case is
> annoying, and it's actually one case of a larger problem:
>
> void main() {
> foreach (i; 0 .. 10) {
> struct S {
>
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 23:27:06 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 23:16:19 UTC, rumbu wrote:
According to this
(https://dlang.org/spec/hash-map.html#static_initialization)
this is correct static initialization for AA:
That only works inside a function, and,
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 23:16:19 UTC, rumbu wrote:
According to this
(https://dlang.org/spec/hash-map.html#static_initialization)
this is correct static initialization for AA:
That only works inside a function, and, ironically, only if the
variable is not `static`...
I believe this
According to this
(https://dlang.org/spec/hash-map.html#static_initialization) this
is correct static initialization for AA:
immutable RoundingMode[string] ibmRounding =
[
">" : RoundingMode.towardPositive,
"<" : RoundingMode.towardNegative,
"0" : RoundingMode.towardZero,
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 21:01:51 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 1/19/18 3:54 PM, Chris M. wrote:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 20:43:18 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:05 PM, Chris M. wrote:
[...]
What is this call doing? You aren't importing std.stdio, so
it
On 01/19/2018 12:40 PM, Chris M. wrote:
> it just runs the function once and exits every time.
I would still put the following try+catch block around the whole logic:
void deviceDownloader()
{
try {
// ... existing contents of the function ...
} catch (Exception exc) {
On 1/19/18 3:54 PM, Chris M. wrote:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 20:43:18 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:05 PM, Chris M. wrote:
[...]
What is this call doing? You aren't importing std.stdio, so it can't
be D's normal write call.
-Steve
It is, left out the import on
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 20:43:18 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:05 PM, Chris M. wrote:
[...]
What is this call doing? You aren't importing std.stdio, so it
can't be D's normal write call.
-Steve
It is, left out the import on accident.
I commented out the call to
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 20:35:14 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 18:18:31 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/19/2018 09:46 AM, Chris M. wrote:
> I tried putting an infinite loop inside main() as well,
didn't seem to
> help.
Another reason is an exception thrown in the
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 18:18:31 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/19/2018 09:46 AM, Chris M. wrote:
> I tried putting an infinite loop inside main() as well,
didn't seem to
> help.
Another reason is an exception thrown in the child thread. If
the exception is not caught, it will terminate
On 1/19/18 1:11 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Fortunately this is not the case. However, the static variable case is
annoying, and it's actually one case of a larger problem:
void main() {
foreach (i; 0 .. 10) {
struct S {
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:16:24PM +, tipdbmp via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> > Mostly, it's just a bad idea - it's very easy for a person reading
> > the code after you've written it to get the two x's mixed up.
>
> // example from: 19.17.1.3
> void main()
> {
> { static int x; }
>
On 01/19/2018 09:46 AM, Chris M. wrote:
> I tried putting an infinite loop inside main() as well, didn't seem to
> help.
Another reason is an exception thrown in the child thread. If the
exception is not caught, it will terminate the child thread and the main
will not know anything about it.
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 17:17:28 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 17:05:44 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
However when I try to spawn it in another thread it runs the
function and then ends once it's done, like it's ignoring the
while(true).
It is probably terminating the
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 17:05:44 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
However when I try to spawn it in another thread it runs the
function and then ends once it's done, like it's ignoring the
while(true).
It is probably terminating the child threads when the main one
ends. Might help to have the
I have the following that is supposed to pull and store info from
a server every five minutes. It works if I move the body of
deviceDownloader into main(). However when I try to spawn it in
another thread it runs the function and then ends once it's done,
like it's ignoring the while(true). I
Mostly, it's just a bad idea - it's very easy for a person
reading the code after you've written it to get the two x's
mixed up.
// example from: 19.17.1.3
void main()
{
{ static int x; }
{ static int x; } // error
{ int i; }
{ int i; } // ok
}
I don't really see how the
On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 11:02:01 UTC, tipdbmp wrote:
The following seems to work in C++, but errors in D, why is
that?
int foo(int* num) {
{
static int x = 10;
x += 1;
*num += x;
}
{
static int x = 20; // error: foo.x is already defined
in
The following seems to work in C++, but errors in D, why is that?
int foo(int* num) {
{
static int x = 10;
x += 1;
*num += x;
}
{
static int x = 20; // error: foo.x is already defined in
another scope in foo
x += 2;
*num += x;
}
21 matches
Mail list logo
