On Friday, 7 March 2014 at 13:57:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:44:09 -0500, captain_fid
wrote:
this() {items = [ {10, "first"}, {20, "second"}];}
strangely enough, when modeling this the first time (using
items as a class) and 'new item() syntax) there was
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:44:09 -0500, captain_fid wrote:
this() {items = [ {10, "first"}, {20, "second"}];}
strangely enough, when modeling this the first time (using items as a
class) and 'new item() syntax) there was no real issue.
I thought using a static array of structs in the chi
On Friday, 7 March 2014 at 00:10:20 UTC, bearophile wrote:
captain_fid:
struct S
{
int a;
string b;
}
class A
{
S[] items;
abstract void doit();
}
class B: A
{
this() {items = [ {10, "first"}, {20, "second"}];}//
line 21
override void doit() { }
}
(21): Error: found '}' when
captain_fid:
struct S
{
int a;
string b;
}
class A
{
S[] items;
abstract void doit();
}
class B: A
{
this() {items = [ {10, "first"}, {20, "second"}];}//
line 21
override void doit() { }
}
(21): Error: found '}' when expecting ';' following statement
(21): Error: found '
Well, actually... take it back.
When I did try this syntax, I receive(d) the following error. I
then went and created this test which I thought couldn't go wrong.
with both dmd and gdc ...
struct S
{
int a;
string b;
}
class A
{
S[] items;
abstract void doit();
}
class B: A
{
this() {items = [ {10, "first"}, {20, "second"}];}
strangely enough, when modeling this the first time (using items
as a class) and 'new item() syntax) there was no real issue.
I thought using a static array of structs in the children would
be more efficient when instantiating the objec
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 at 22:16:50 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:05:12 -0500, captain_fid
wrote:
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 at 21:26:11 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/06/2014 12:02 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> The best way
> to reference an array in a
On 03/06/2014 02:05 PM, captain_fid wrote:
> Your suggestion Ali (of not accessing the base member in the child was
> great) and it works properly.
>
> Believe if I understand what you are suggesting above is never to have
> the array in base? simply retrieve slice through the child member
funct
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:05:12 -0500, captain_fid wrote:
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 at 21:26:11 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/06/2014 12:02 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> The best way
> to reference an array in a child class, especially one of a
static type,
> is to not have anothe
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 at 21:26:11 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/06/2014 12:02 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> The best way
> to reference an array in a child class, especially one of a
static type,
> is to not have another copy in the child class :)
Agreed. Alternatively,
On 03/06/2014 12:02 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> The best way
> to reference an array in a child class, especially one of a static type,
> is to not have another copy in the child class :)
Agreed. Alternatively, a member function in the child class could return
a slice.
Ali
Steve and Ali, Thanks for the quick helpful suggestions. In this
case I probably don't need the expansion (but certainly look
forward to understanding either way).
I'll certainly hit that reference (Special thanks Ali for your
book. I've enjoyed it over the past few months)
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:02:14 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Second, it's very difficult to get an array, just by itself, in the
heap. And you don't want to store a reference to a stack-frame slice.
Sorry, I meant an array *reference*, not an array. Clearly allocating an
array in the
doesn't understand what a D slice is.
Actually, given the subject of this post, I take it back. The best way to
reference an array in a child class, especially one of a static type, is
to not have another copy in the child class :)
> You can read more about D arrays and sli
On 03/06/2014 11:40 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> class A
>> {
>>S[]* pointer_to_list;
>>abstract...
>> }
> I would highly suggest to just use S[] and not S[]*. A slice is already
> a reference (coupled with a length).
But what if there are elements added to B.items later on? I ass
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:31:52 -0500, captain_fid wrote:
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 at 19:19:29 UTC, captain_fid wrote:
Sorry for the very basic question. Much still alludes me with this
language. I appreciate the forum.
struct S
{
Wow sorry for that. I'm a moron... don't press ...
struct
On 03/06/2014 11:31 AM, captain_fid wrote:
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 at 19:19:29 UTC, captain_fid wrote:
Sorry for the very basic question. Much still alludes me with this
language. I appreciate the forum.
struct S
{
Wow sorry for that. I'm a moron... don't press ...
struct S
{
int a;
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 at 19:19:29 UTC, captain_fid wrote:
Sorry for the very basic question. Much still alludes me with
this language. I appreciate the forum.
struct S
{
Wow sorry for that. I'm a moron... don't press ...
struct S
{
int a;
string b;
}
class A
{
S[]* pointer_to_lis
Sorry for the very basic question. Much still alludes me with
this language. I appreciate the forum.
struct S
{
19 matches
Mail list logo
