On 03/08/2012 03:39 AM, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 3/7/12 2:28 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/06/2012 09:11 PM, ixid wrote:
I'm writing my first basic algorithms, this one is merge sort. This
version throws an exception when array.length - setSize is negative
(which should be fine, the rest of my
On 7 March 2012 19:30, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On 03/06/2012 10:05 PM, ixid wrote:
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what is
the benefit to size being unsigned rather than signed?
This case would seem like one where allowing negatives is clearly
On 03/07/2012 07:05 AM, ixid wrote:
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what is the
benefit to size being unsigned rather than signed? This case would seem
like one where allowing negatives is clearly better and more intuitive.
The problem is not that length is
On 03/07/2012 11:01 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/07/2012 07:05 AM, ixid wrote:
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what is the
benefit to size being unsigned rather than signed? This case would seem
like one where allowing negatives is clearly better and more intuitive.
On 3/7/12, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
The problem is not that length is unsigned. The issue is the implicit
conversion from signed to unsigned.
You bet. I've once had this hard to spot bug where I've used a call
that was something like max(0, min(10, expression)), and this ended
up
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 11:01:05 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/07/2012 07:05 AM, ixid wrote:
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what is the
benefit to size being unsigned rather than signed? This case would seem
like one where allowing negatives is clearly better
On 3/7/2012 12:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 11:01:05 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/07/2012 07:05 AM, ixid wrote:
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what is the
I suspect that the reality of the matter is that if we disallowed implicit
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 13:20:41 Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
On 3/7/2012 12:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 11:01:05 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/07/2012 07:05 AM, ixid wrote:
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what is the
I suspect that
On 3/7/12 2:28 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/06/2012 09:11 PM, ixid wrote:
I'm writing my first basic algorithms, this one is merge sort. This
version throws an exception when array.length - setSize is negative
(which should be fine, the rest of my function would deal with it):
template
On 8 March 2012 15:39, Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote:
On 3/7/12 2:28 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/06/2012 09:11 PM, ixid wrote:
I'm writing my first basic algorithms, this one is merge sort. This
version throws an exception when array.length - setSize is negative
(which
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 16:15:08 James Miller wrote:
Its the semantics in C/C++ and D explicitly tries to have the same
semantics as them. From what I remember its to aid people moving from
those language to D.
More like it's to avoid code silently breaking when it's ported. In general,
On 03/07/2012 12:23 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
There are probably hundreds of discussions about that over the years on
many different language newsgroups and forums. :) There is no clear
winner: Both sides of the arguments seem to have good points.
Ali
know any good ones off the top of your
On 03/07/2012 07:51 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 03/07/2012 12:23 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
There are probably hundreds of discussions about that over the years on
many different language newsgroups and forums. :) There is no clear
winner: Both sides of the arguments seem to have good points.
I'm writing my first basic algorithms, this one is merge sort.
This version throws an exception when array.length - setSize is
negative (which should be fine, the rest of my function would
deal with it):
template mergeSort(T)
{
void mergeSort(ref T[] array, const T setSize = 100)
On 03/06/2012 09:11 PM, ixid wrote:
I'm writing my first basic algorithms, this one is merge sort. This
version throws an exception when array.length - setSize is negative
(which should be fine, the rest of my function would deal with it):
template mergeSort(T)
{
void mergeSort(ref T[]
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:11:18AM +0100, ixid wrote:
I'm writing my first basic algorithms, this one is merge sort. This
version throws an exception when array.length - setSize is negative
(which should be fine, the rest of my function would deal with it):
[...]
array.length is of type
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what
is the benefit to size being unsigned rather than signed? This
case would seem like one where allowing negatives is clearly
better and more intuitive.
On 03/06/2012 10:05 PM, ixid wrote:
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what is the
benefit to size being unsigned rather than signed? This case would seem
like one where allowing negatives is clearly better and more intuitive.
There are probably hundreds of
On 03/06/2012 10:05 PM, ixid wrote:
Ah, thank you, so it's wrapping. That seems like a bad idea, what is
the benefit to size being unsigned rather than signed?
Because it doesn't make sense to have something with a negative size?
This case would seem like one where allowing negatives is
19 matches
Mail list logo
