On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:06:11 -0500, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 20:42:59 Marco Leise wrote:
Am 29.11.2011, 20:41 Uhr, schrieb Marco Leise marco.le...@gmx.de:
Am 29.11.2011, 14:53 Uhr, schrieb bearophile
bearophileh...@lycos.com:
deadalnix:
On 11/30/2011 7:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:06:11 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
The type of the index should be irrelavent to the underlying loop
mechanism.
Note that the issue is really that foreach(T i, val; arr) {...}
translates to for(T i
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:54:11 -0500, Xinok xi...@live.com wrote:
On 11/30/2011 7:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:06:11 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
The type of the index should be irrelavent to the underlying loop
mechanism.
Note that the issue
On 11/30/2011 11:46 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:54:11 -0500, Xinok xi...@live.com wrote:
On 11/30/2011 7:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:06:11 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
The type of the index should be irrelavent to
On 11/30/2011 10:17 AM, Xinok wrote:
On 11/30/2011 11:46 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
foreach(_i; ubyte.min..ubyte.max + 1){
ubyte i = cast(ubyte)_i;
}
But my point was, foreach over a range gives me all the elements in a
range, regardless of how the underlying loop is constructed. The
On 11/30/11, Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
I remember at one point there was someone who had actual code that
resulted in a loop for ubytes, or was trying to figure out how to foreach
over all possible ubyte values.
Instant flashback, I think it was this:
Le 29/11/2011 04:11, Andrej Mitrovic a écrit :
On 11/29/11, bearophilebearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Do you know why the compiler doesn't ask you for a cast, and why the run
does that?
Because foreach is broken?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4510
No it has nothing to do
I meant that in a sarcastic way. :)
deadalnix:
No it has nothing to do with this bug.
I tend to agree.
But actually, this exemple should
generate a warning at least, or being illegal eventually.
I'd like that code to loop on all array 256 items once, and then stop :-)
Bye,
bearophile
Am 29.11.2011, 14:53 Uhr, schrieb bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com:
deadalnix:
No it has nothing to do with this bug.
I tend to agree.
But actually, this exemple should
generate a warning at least, or being illegal eventually.
I'd like that code to loop on all array 256 items once,
Am 29.11.2011, 20:41 Uhr, schrieb Marco Leise marco.le...@gmx.de:
Am 29.11.2011, 14:53 Uhr, schrieb bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com:
deadalnix:
No it has nothing to do with this bug.
I tend to agree.
But actually, this exemple should
generate a warning at least, or being illegal
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 20:42:59 Marco Leise wrote:
Am 29.11.2011, 20:41 Uhr, schrieb Marco Leise marco.le...@gmx.de:
Am 29.11.2011, 14:53 Uhr, schrieb bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com:
deadalnix:
No it has nothing to do with this bug.
I tend to agree.
But actually, this
I get an infinite loop. :s
Andrej Mitrovic:
I get an infinite loop. :s
In your brain, really? Is that dangerous?
Bye,
bearophile
Err no? Running after compilation goes into an infinite loop on 2.056.
Andrej Mitrovic:
Err no? Running after compilation goes into an infinite loop on 2.056.
Silly, this is a quiz, you need to try to answer without compiling it first :-)
Do you know why the compiler doesn't ask you for a cast, and why the run does
that?
Bye,
bearophile
On 11/29/11, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Do you know why the compiler doesn't ask you for a cast, and why the run
does that?
Because foreach is broken?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4510
17 matches
Mail list logo
