I'm using the latest LDC2 beta, and when running the compiler
with -I (Look for imports also in ) it fails with
unresolved externals. These are my commands.
=
$ ldc2 "source\setup.d" -I "source" -J "build\vars" -of
"build\bin\setup.exe" -m32
Using this dub.json configuration
{
"name": "app",
"authors": [
"Author"
],
"description": "App Description",
"copyright": "Copyright © 2018, Author",
"license": "Boost",
"dependencies": {
"arsd-official" : "~>2.1.2",
On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 at 17:38:44 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 at 17:20:25 UTC, Ephrahim wrote:
So i need your help guys, can you point me to any
documentation or libraries i can use to watch files/folders
for changes (delete, edit, new content)?
This package
On 10/10/18 4:07 AM, Gorker wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 at 08:02:29 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
stderr buffer is full (it's about 8kb or so) and gcc waits when you
read from it.
Thank you for your kind reply,
How to just try to read from stdout (not blocking), and then try to read
from stde
On 10/10/18 6:26 PM, Chris Katko wrote:
Wait, this IS the same as C, isn't it? So maybe this is just a "new"
problem for me since I rarely-if-ever use hardcoded arrays...
Yes, I think that is right. The only difference is if you specify a
NON-square array, D requires you specify in the opposi
On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 at 22:56:14 UTC, James Japherson
wrote:
One of the problems is connecting it with actual code that does
something depending on the path in a way that is general enough
to be used for a wide variety of problems.
Any ideas on how this could be done?
My first idea
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 06:30:01 UTC, bauss wrote:
To give the real world example.
I'm converting a function into a soap envelope which means the
identifiers must be the same because the parameter names passed
in the soap envelope must have the same names.
Basically what I wanted was
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 07:44:04 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
Now, is this the only way to inform the soap factory of your
parameter names? Could you instead pass them more explicitly?
The variable example is actually a good alternative. I like it.
To answer your question however, yes
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 06:30:01 UTC, bauss wrote:
Because I'm constructing something from the parameters.
To give the real world example.
I'm converting a function into a soap envelope which means the
identifiers must be the same because the parameter names passed
in the soap envelop
