I have a lot of string concatenation to do and I'm wondering if
char[] is faster? Does it simply extend the buffer or are new
buffers created every time?
What I am looking for is something like StringBuilder in C#.
On Wednesday, 5 April 2017 at 12:42:23 UTC, evilrat wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 April 2017 at 12:13:38 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
Hi,
How can I build single exe application with vibe.d (windows)?
now it require zlib.dll, libeay32.dll and ssleay32.dll
But I need it as single app.
btw, if all you need is
I am using opDispatch to wrap function calls
Error: 'this' is only defined in non-static member functions, not
opDispatch!"foo"
class X
{
auto localfoo() { return 3; }
template opDispatch(string name, Args...)
{
static if (name == `foo`) { alias opDispatch = () {
return
On Monday, 3 April 2017 at 19:34:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 3 April 2017 at 19:25:35 UTC, Inquie wrote:
what if I don't care about security reasons? I'm only needing
it for developmental purposes.
Why does it have to be at compile time then? Just run an
ordinary runtime program
On Monday, 3 April 2017 at 19:06:01 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 19:42:52 UTC, Inquie wrote:
I would like to write the output of a manifest constant at
compile time to a file instead of console using pragma(msg).
Is this possible?
D does not allow IO at compile time for
On Monday, 3 April 2017 at 03:08:22 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 04/02/2017 03:24 PM, Inquie wrote:
>> Show a usage, someone certainly propose a pattern that does
the job.
>
> int delegate() f;
> void delegate(int) f;
That won't work because both of those are variables and
variables don't have
On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 21:47:55 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 20:48:09 UTC, Inquie wrote:
On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 20:02:56 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 19:24:14 UTC, Inquie wrote:
is it possible to create a delegate that takes an optional
number
On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 20:02:56 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 19:24:14 UTC, Inquie wrote:
is it possible to create a delegate that takes an optional
number of parameters and/or return type?
T delegate(S...)(S) special_delegate;
I guess this is impossible?
alias
I would like to write the output of a manifest constant at
compile time to a file instead of console using pragma(msg). Is
this possible?
is it possible to create a delegate that takes an optional number
of parameters and/or return type?
T delegate(S...)(S) special_delegate;
I guess this is impossible?
On Saturday, 1 April 2017 at 00:12:10 UTC, Inquie wrote:
So, I rebuilt everything again from scratch, I fixed up the
make files and such and everything went smooth. I was able to
not have the errors.
[...]
I was able to solve the comdat problem by moving a local function
outside a
So, I rebuilt everything again from scratch, I fixed up the make
files and such and everything went smooth. I was able to not have
the errors.
I think what I did first was I built dmdx64 then copied it to the
bin dir and tried to use it but got the phobos errors. I then
tried to build
On Friday, 31 March 2017 at 14:24:43 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2017 at 14:19:59 UTC, Inquie wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2017 at 08:20:51 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
[...]
Yes, I downloaded druntime from github and built it as I did
phobos. The 64-bit make files have issues
On Friday, 31 March 2017 at 08:20:51 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2017 at 07:23:42 UTC, Inquie wrote:
I am trying to build DMD 64-bit. I was able to build
everything after getting the paths fixed for zlib, druntime,
and phobos. Everything seems to compile. I replaced all the
I am trying to build DMD 64-bit. I was able to build everything
after getting the paths fixed for zlib, druntime, and phobos.
Everything seems to compile. I replaced all the files generated
in to the dmd directories of the old ones. (phobos64.lib,
gcstub.obj, dmd.exe)
But anytime I build my
Is there a 64-bit DMD compiler that doesn't have the 2GB memory
limitations that the 32-bit one has? I am not talking about
compiling 64-bit programs but the dmd binary itself.
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 03:50:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 03:43:20 Inquie via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
Related: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5051
- Jonathan M Davis
So, after 3 years, nothing?
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 03:40:42 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 03/15/2017 03:01 AM, Inquie wrote:
If I do something like
enum X = Methods!(C);
foreach(x; X)
{
mixin(x);
}
I get an error about x not being a compile time variable.
(code above is
simplified, the error has nothing to do
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 08:17:11 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 14:35:11 UTC, Inquie wrote:
There is really no any arrays to keep track of or anything
like that matter you stated.
...
3 steps:
...
3. The compiler calls all the delegates on destruction.
Here you
So, is it possible to debug string mixins?
I ran visual D and tried to step in to a function that was
generated by a mixin and it brought an open file dialog box
asking me to load the source code where the function was
located... of course, it wasn't located anywhere except in the
mixin
If I do something like
enum X = Methods!(C);
foreach(x; X)
{
mixin(x);
}
I get an error about x not being a compile time variable. (code
above is simplified, the error has nothing to do with the form
but of the foreach(x )
but if I wrap it in a function it works
string foo()
{
enum X
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 20:56:02 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/13/2017 10:29 AM, Inquie wrote:
Does D have any nice way to specify a block for cold folding?
I have a
very large set of structs and I'd like to be able to code fold
them all
at once and together.
I have been using
static
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 19:43:59 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 19:39:26 UTC, Inquie wrote:
__traits(allMembers, T);
Try derivedMembers instead.
That doesn't work, unfortunately, probably because of the types
I'm using(just returns object.
What I can do is
I am iterating over the members of classes and interfaces and get
things like hash, this, etc. These are causing problems in my
code. I would like to get only the "specified" members.
While I can filter out
__traits(allMembers, T);
using Erase, it is tedius and error prone.
Is there a way
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 19:14:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:59:58PM +, Inquie via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
[...]
> [...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
Keep in mind, though, that the above creates a function pointer
with the same signature as the mem
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 17:42:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:05:10PM +, Inquie via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I am generating member function pointers using the declaration
specified from a standard member function. The standard member
function is a valid D
Many times I need to build a type using a string. I have to
resort to building the entire expression/statement using the
mixin:
mixin("This is a long and complex expression where I only need to
modify X")
Is there any way to do a sort of "inline mixin"?
This is a long and complex
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 17:07:57 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 17:29:41 UTC, Inquie wrote:
Does D have any nice way to specify a block for cold folding?
I personally sometimes use
// some description {
// }
since my editor does a really good job matching {},
I am generating member function pointers using the declaration
specified from a standard member function. The standard member
function is a valid D function that could use any types.
Is there any pitfalls like there are in C++ from generating a
function pointer from them?
e.g.,
X
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 16:29:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 15:44:27 UTC, Inquie wrote:
So, with all the bloviating, all I have arrived at is that my
original hack is still the only way to get the cold folding I
wanted(the original use case I had in mind, even
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 15:18:00 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 00:38:12 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
FYI: The "you must implement my feature request or D will
never succeed" attitude is rather common and never helpful.
Not to mention that such an argument would be
Just for fun:
1. Folding directives are glorified comments. #region has zero
meaning to the compiler; it's a hint to the editor to allow code
folding. It doesn't do any namespacing or scoping. Why, exactly,
are we writing code to accommodate the editor? It boggles my mind
that we'd add
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 00:38:12 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 21:33:56 UTC, Inquie wrote:
One can say that it is a useless feature because D doesn't
have it... or one could say that D is useless because it
doesn't have it. A nice balance is simply to say "It
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 05:33:28 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 14:28:01 UTC, Inquie wrote:
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 05:18:18 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 21:38:44 UTC, Inquie wrote:
Is there any easy way to create a scope for termination
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 14:15:05 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 14:09:58 UTC, Inquie wrote:
Yeah, so, surely though we can extract the names from the
variable and then supply those like I mentioned?
Yeah, we prolly could, but a simpler thing might be to just use
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 21:17:31 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 17:29:41 UTC, Inquie wrote:
I have been using
static if(true)
{
... junk
}
Indeed #region is part of the C# specification, even if it has
no effect on the code. (The specification does not say
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 18:26:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 17:29:41 Inquie via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Does D have any nice way to specify a block for cold folding?
I have a very large set of structs and I'd like to be able to
code fold them all at once
Does D have any nice way to specify a block for cold folding? I
have a very large set of structs and I'd like to be able to code
fold them all at once and together.
I have been using
static if(true)
{
... junk
}
but the static if is uninformative since that is the only line
that is
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 00:23:36 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 03/13/2017 01:02 AM, Inquie wrote:
Ok, it doesn't work for appending though ;)
[...]
Tuple!(int, "A", double, "B")[] y;
y ~= tuple(3, 2.5);
Interestingly, this works:
Tuple!(int, "A", double, "B")[] y;
y.length += 1;
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 05:18:18 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 21:38:44 UTC, Inquie wrote:
Is there any easy way to create a scope for termination of the
object?
I have a template method that takes a type and allocates and
deallocates based on that type.
class
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 00:51:27 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 00:02:12 UTC, Inquie wrote:
I just figured it didn't work in general, but seems to be an
issue with appending.
Oh, it is because of the implicit construction thing, see my
answer here to learn more:
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 23:55:44 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 23:16:48 UTC, Inquie wrote:
Tuple!(int, "A") x;
x = tuple(3);
fails of course
umm it works for me...
Ok, it doesn't work for appending though ;)
Tuple!(int, "A", double, "B")[] y;
y ~= tuple!("A",
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 22:13:21 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 21:38:44 UTC, Inquie wrote:
Is there any easy way to create a scope for termination of the
object?
[...]
scope(exit)
That is for the function, correct? If I release the resource at
the end of the
Is there any easy way to create a scope for termination of the
object?
I have a template method that takes a type and allocates and
deallocates based on that type.
class bar
{
void foo(T)()
{
T x;
alloc(x);
scope(~this) dealloc(x); // hypothetical that wraps the
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 08:09:42 UTC, John wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 21:06:01 UTC, Joerg Joergonson
wrote:
My thinking is that CoCreateinstance is suppose to give us a
pointer to the interface so we can use it, if all this stuff
is crashing does that mean the interface is invalid
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 08:09:42 UTC, John wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 21:06:01 UTC, Joerg Joergonson
wrote:
[...]
The problem is Photoshop hasn't provided an interface with
methods that can be called directly. They don't exist on the
interface, hence them being commented out.
46 matches
Mail list logo
