On Sunday, 28 July 2013 at 16:57:54 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
What D related (or interesting development based) twitter
accounts do you guys follow? I'm pretty new to twitter and
trying to follow accounts that i find interesting.
Just remembered when reading this:
https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/44278/debunking-stroustrups-debunking-of-the-myth-c-is-for-large-complicated-pro
On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 at 14:36:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
With GC you usually have two destructors:
Which is why this approach is so cumbersome. At least, in non-GC
you only have just one kind of destructor.
On Monday, 10 November 2014 at 05:00:25 UTC, tcak wrote:
On Sunday, 9 November 2014 at 21:47:03 UTC, eles wrote:
On Sunday, 9 November 2014 at 19:00:01 UTC, tcak wrote:
Because I am auto casting with a keyword, compiler shouldn't
complain about it as well. This can also solve uncast thing.
On Sunday, 9 November 2014 at 19:00:01 UTC, tcak wrote:
In some cases, I need to cast right hand side expression to
left hand side. While it looks/feels simple for basic data
types, it requires long lines with duplication when flexible
code is desired to be written.
Example:
int a = 7;
byte
On Sunday, 9 November 2014 at 16:31:46 UTC, bearophile wrote:
H. S. Teoh:
It's only a bad idea because people abuse assert() where it's
not appropriate.
It's a bad idea because Walter seems unable to understand the
difference between verifying and proving.
I fail to see the difference
C++ versions:
{ //displays ~C~B~A
A foo;
B bar;
C *caz = new C();
delete caz;
}
std::cout std::endl;
{ //displays ~C~B~A
std::unique_ptrA foo = std::make_uniqueA();
std::unique_ptrB bar =
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 15:45:02 UTC, eles wrote:
D version with structs:
{ //display ~C~B~A
A foo;
B bar;
C *caz = new C();
delete caz;
}
as expected.
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 17:13:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 16:55:41 UTC, Regan Heath
So why wasn't the eles' destructor order in reverse if Scoped
is a struct and calls explicit destroy(B) then destroy(A)?
Maybe it's the writeln() inside the
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 18:03:44 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 15:45:02 UTC, eles wrote:
`foo` should be a `Scoped!A`. When it's typed as `A`, the
`Scoped!A` that is returned by `scoped`, is destructed
immediately (and the reference leaks, I guess).
Just
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 18:03:44 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 at 15:45:02 UTC, eles wrote:
D version:
`foo` should be a `Scoped!A`. When it's typed as `A`, the
`Scoped!A` that is returned by `scoped`, is destructed
immediately (and the reference leaks, I
On Friday, 17 October 2014 at 13:59:03 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:10:09 +0200
spir via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
computer programming is the literacy of the new age.
Let's say, computer knowledge. There are also
On Friday, 17 October 2014 at 16:39:38 UTC, Uranuz wrote:
I haven't touched any key on a keyboard and haven't pressed
*Send* but message was posted somehow.
Scan for rootkits...
Hello,
According to this:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/lddug4$jgv$1...@digitalmars.com
-betterC should disable support for exception handling. So I
expected dmd to reject the following code:
===
import std.stdio;
int readDieFromFile()
{
auto
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:31:47 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:20:50 UTC, eles wrote:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/lddug4$jgv$1...@digitalmars.com
-betterC right now is still an undocumented hack that doesn't
do much.
Thank you.
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 15:29:57 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 11:19:52 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:01:28 +
John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 11:54:56 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 10:10:04 UTC, eles wrote:
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 15:29:57 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 11:19:52 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:01:28
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:44:36 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 12:36:41 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:54:55 +
John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
I disagree. It's simple and easy to
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 13:23:55 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 12:16:14 UTC, eles wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 11:54:56 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 10:10:04 UTC, eles wrote:
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 15:29:57 UTC, John Colvin
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 19:03:13 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 16:04:02 UTC, eles wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:44:36 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 12:36:41 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:54:55
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 09:39:12 UTC, Chris
Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
In the original you are casting an int to a pointer type, which
is legitimate (although rarely a good idea). The other side of
the matter is simply precedence.
cast(T)a.b;
Is really the same as:
cast(T)(a.b);
Yes,
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 09:39:12 UTC, Chris
Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
In the original you are casting an int to a pointer type, which
is legitimate (although rarely a good idea). The other side of
the matter is simply precedence.
cast(T)a.b;
Is really the same as:
cast(T)(a.b);
But
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 10:27:18 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 04:02:46 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 15:47:33 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 15:44:16 UTC, eles wrote:
So the compiler has no way of knowing whether you've
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 10:27:18 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 04:02:46 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 15:47:33 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 15:44:16 UTC, eles wrote:
class ShapeSurface(T) {
public:
int formula();
On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 10:38:32 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:27:16 +
John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
is there any possibility to declare *class* *method* in one
Yes, that too. Is even worse.
This is under Linux 64 with both dmd 2.066 (and latest gdc-4.9):
=
class ShapeSurface(T) {
public:
int formula();
int getSurfaceBy100() {
int surface;
surface = cast(T
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 15:47:33 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 15:44:16 UTC, eles wrote:
class ShapeSurface(T) {
public:
int formula();
that means you have a definition of formula elsewhere (which
the linker tries to find, but obviously fails. What you
On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 07:26:45 UTC, klpo wrote:
On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 20:29:09 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 20:03:57 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
The problem is in D [0..9] has a completely different
signification.
All the sins of the past...
On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 16:46:11 UTC, Ryan wrote:
Me: Software developer for 30 years.
What IDE should I use? I'm not big fan of Eclipse, although if
If you are an Eclipse (CDT) user for C/C++, then you will find a
very similar plugin for D, called DDT, here:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 05:45:34 UTC, eles wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 05:39:59 UTC, Vladimir
Panteleev wrote:
On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 03:19:09 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
failure and the SIGKILL.
(and SIGKILL just because you cannot catch it, otherwise you
could
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 05:39:59 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 03:19:09 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Sorry, you're right, that description of Exception/Error is
correct. But I don't think that SDL initialization is a
non-recoverable error. The program might
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 08:48:03 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Bienlein:
things in such Limbo for several years).
decades
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 20:58:34 UTC, Foo wrote:
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 20:38:59 UTC, David wrote:
Hi, not too sure if there's still someone reading this post,
but i do have another question. So, I heared so much good
stuff about D, it's powerfull, fast the syntax is nice, but
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 05:17:08 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On 8/3/2014 5:38 AM, David wrote:
about platform support,
I know the story. But throwing all the weight behind a
more-standard back-end would improve things. Yes, it would
require some transition effort. But, then, ldc and gdc
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 12:37:51 UTC, eles wrote:
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 20:58:34 UTC, Foo wrote:
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 20:38:59 UTC, David wrote:
on this road. It matters less for us to be able to use slices
And this while D really nailed down two things very well:
On Friday, 27 June 2014 at 08:17:07 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Thank you for your responses. I am partly enlightened. :p
On 06/27/2014 12:34 AM, safety0ff wrote:
On Friday, 27 June 2014 at 07:03:28 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
But addRange doesn't seem to make sense for stdlib.malloc'ed
memory,
36 matches
Mail list logo
