On Tuesday, 4 June 2024 at 16:58:50 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
question in the header, code in the body, execute on a X86 or
X86_64 CPU
```d
module test;
void setIt(ref bool b) @safe
{
b = false;
}
void main(string[] args)
{
ushort a = 0b;
bool* b = cast(bool*)
On Friday, 5 April 2024 at 21:26:10 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
On Friday, 5 April 2024 at 21:16:42 UTC, rkompass wrote:
In the first example the int's are converted to doubles (also
common type).
But they appear as int's because writeln does not write a
trailing .0.
But it doesn't work as
On Friday, 5 April 2024 at 16:05:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 03:18:09PM +, Salih Dincer via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Hi everyone,
Technically r1 and r2 are different types of range. Isn't it
inconsistent to chain both? If not, why is the char type
converted to
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 03:54:05 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 March 2024 at 20:50:05 UTC, rkompass wrote:
This works:
I decided to give the full code. Maybe then it will be better
understood what I mean. I actually pointed out the indirect
solution above but it's a bit
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 14:07:43 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 11:50:38 UTC, rkompass wrote:
Turning back to this: Are there similarly simple libraries for
C, that allow for
parallel computation?
You can achieve parallelism in C using libraries such as
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 01:09:34 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
Good thing you're digressing; I am 45 years old and I still
cannot say that I am finished as a student! For me this is
version 4 and it looks like we don't need a 3rd variable other
than the function parameter and return value:
On Wednesday, 27 March 2024 at 13:38:29 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
So, not works this:
```d
fib(1, 1).take(48)
//.array
.chunks(2)
.map!"a[1] / a[0]"
.back
.writeln; // 1.61803
```
Thanks...
SDB@79
This works:
```d
import std.stdio;
import
I apologize for digressing a little bit further - just to share
insights to other learners.
I had the question, why my binary was so big (> 4M), discovered
the
`gdc -Wall -O2 -frelease -shared-libphobos` options (now >200K).
Then I tried to avoid GC, just learnt about this: The GC in the
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 23:02:19 UTC, Sergey wrote:
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 22:16:06 UTC, rkompass wrote:
Are there some simple switches / settings to get a smaller
binary?
1) If possible you can use "betterC" - to disable runtime
2) otherwise
```bash
--release --O3 --flto=full
The term containing the `pow` invocation computes the
alternating sequence -1, 1, -1, ..., which can be replaced by
e.g.
```
immutable int [2] sign = [-1, 1];
n += sign [i & 1] / (i * 2.0 - 1.0);
```
This saves the expensive call to the pow function.
I used the loop:
```d
for
@bachmeier
You're not the first one. There's no technical reason for the
restriction. It's simply a matter of being opposed by those who
make these decisions on the basis that it's the wrong way to
program or something like that. Here is a recent thread:
To solve the problem with the 1-variable and 2-variable versions
of foreach I
tried opApply and found that the compiler prefers it over opSlice
and opIndex() (the latter without argument).
My code:
```d
int opApply(int delegate(Variant) foreachblock) const {
int result
On Friday, 15 March 2024 at 17:15:56 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
On Friday, 15 March 2024 at 09:03:25 UTC, rkompass wrote:
@Monkyyy: I adopted your solution, it is perfect.
I only have one problem left:
The foreach loop with associative arrays has two cases:
`foreach(key, val; arr)` and `foreach(x;
@Monkyyy: I adopted your solution, it is perfect.
I only have one problem left:
The foreach loop with associative arrays has two cases:
`foreach(key, val; arr)` and `foreach(x; arr)`.
In the second case only the values are iterated.
With the present solution the iteration delivers (key, val)
Hello @monkyyy,
thank you for your help. I will study and try your code.
Meanwhile I have found that I can add this function into the
struct:
```d
// postblit constructor, see
//
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38785624/d-struct-copy-constructor
this(this) {
I want to make a custom dictionary that I may iterate through
with foreach. Several times.
What I observe so far is that my dict as a simple forward range
is exhausted after the first foreach and I have to deeply copy it
beforehand.
With a simple associative array the exhaustion is not
16 matches
Mail list logo
