On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 04:18:47 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 04:01:00 +, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
By noting that all (interesting for the purpose of UDA's i.e.
not void)
types have a .init
or you could do
static if (is(typeof(uda) == Foo) || is(uda == Foo))
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 04:01:00 +, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> By noting that all (interesting for the purpose of UDA's i.e. not void)
> types have a .init
>
> or you could do
>
> static if (is(typeof(uda) == Foo) || is(uda == Foo))
Which, again, only tests for presence, when I want to check for
On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 03:13:19 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:36:18 +, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
What do you do to handle this?
@Foo() int bar;
instead of
@Foo int bar;
Right. And if you're offering a library with UDAs for other
people to use?
I mean I
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:36:18 +, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> What do you do to handle this?
>
> @Foo() int bar;
>
> instead of
>
> @Foo int bar;
Right. And if you're offering a library with UDAs for other people to use?
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 23:59:26 +, kerdemdemir wrote:
> I am doing trading and super scared of suprices like mathematical errors
> during the multiplications(or division 1/tickSize) since market will
> reject my orders even if there is a small mistake.
>
> Is this safe? Or is there a better way
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 16:14:45 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
The spec says that a user-defined attribute must be an
expression, but DMD accepts a wide range of things as UDAs:
Indeed UDA are odd beasts:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19127
What do you do to handle this?
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 23:59:26 UTC, kerdemdemir wrote:
I have two numbers
First The price = 0.0016123
Second Maximum allowed precision = 0.0001(it can be only
0.001, 0.0001, 0.1, ..., 0.01 bunch of zeros and
than a one that is it)
Anything more precise than
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:59:26PM +, kerdemdemir via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> I have two numbers
>
> First The price = 0.0016123
> Second Maximum allowed precision = 0.0001(it can be only 0.001,
> 0.0001, 0.1, ..., 0.01 bunch of zeros and than a one that
> is it)
I have two numbers
First The price = 0.0016123
Second Maximum allowed precision = 0.0001(it can be only
0.001, 0.0001, 0.1, ..., 0.01 bunch of zeros and than
a one that is it)
Anything more precise than the allow precision should truncated.
So in this case 0.0016123
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 20:33:10 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:01:51 +, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
Check if an UDA is a type?.. As in, not just `is(uda == Foo)`,
but simply `is(uda)`:
Which works, but generally makes things more complex in code
that's already
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:01:51 +, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> Check if an UDA is a type?.. As in, not just `is(uda == Foo)`,
> but simply `is(uda)`:
Which works, but generally makes things more complex in code that's
already pretty deeply nested. It's also something I have to worry about
every
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 11:35:27 -0700, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 09:14 AM, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
>> The spec says that a user-defined attribute must be an expression, but
>> DMD accepts a wide range of things as UDAs:
>>
>>struct Foo { string name = "unknown"; }
>>@Foo int bar;
>>
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 16:14:45 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
The spec says that a user-defined attribute must be an
expression, but DMD accepts a wide range of things as UDAs:
struct Foo { string name = "unknown"; }
@Foo int bar;
`bar` has the *type* Foo as an attribute. It's not
On 11/01/2018 09:14 AM, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
The spec says that a user-defined attribute must be an expression, but DMD
accepts a wide range of things as UDAs:
struct Foo { string name = "unknown"; }
@Foo int bar;
`bar` has the *type* Foo as an attribute. It's not an *instance* of Foo.
The spec says that a user-defined attribute must be an expression, but DMD
accepts a wide range of things as UDAs:
struct Foo { string name = "unknown"; }
@Foo int bar;
`bar` has the *type* Foo as an attribute. It's not an *instance* of Foo.
So if I try to look at the UDAs:
static
On Monday, 29 October 2018 at 11:31:55 UTC, Igor wrote:
The way I see it the advantage of smaller packages is that
users can pick and choose and and only have the code they
really need in their project, but the con could become managing
a lot of dependencies. Also I am not sure how compile
On Monday, 29 October 2018 at 10:14:23 UTC, Dukc wrote:
I'm trying to profile my program, built like:
dub build --build=profile
When I run the program, where is the performance profile file
supposed to appear? I can find nothing new in the
program/project root directory. This happens
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 00:01:04 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Tell me which version are you using and I'll make it for you.
By the way this is a really generous offer, thanks for being like
that!
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 00:01:04 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 23:14:08 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo
wrote:
Currently, BitArray is not usable at compile time, so you
cannot do
```
enum e = BitArray([1, 1, 1, 0]);
```
This gives
On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 03:46 +, helxi via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
>
> Why is that, if I may ask? Is it the licensing concerns?
>
As with any programming language or framework, the biggest driver of
opinion tends to be the personal prejudices of those who shout loudest
and longest.
--
20 matches
Mail list logo
