Am 05.07.2016 um 17:22 schrieb Marc Schütz:
> auto concat(T : E[n], E, size_t n)(const E[][] args...) @nogc
> {
> size_t offset = 0;
> T result = void;
> foreach(arr; args) {
> result[offset .. offset+arr.length] = arr;
> offset += arr.length;
> }
>
Am 05.07.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Johannes Loher:
> Am 05.07.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Rene Zwanenburg:
>> On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 at 12:34:20 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
>>> I tried this, but it does not work correctly with slices.
>>
>> The length of a slice is a runtime value, which is why it can't be
auto concat(T : E[n], E, size_t n)(const E[][] args...) @nogc
{
size_t offset = 0;
T result = void;
foreach(arr; args) {
result[offset .. offset+arr.length] = arr;
offset += arr.length;
}
assert(offset == result.length);
return result;
}
static immutable
Am 05.07.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Rene Zwanenburg:
> On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 at 12:34:20 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
>> I tried this, but it does not work correctly with slices.
>
> The length of a slice is a runtime value, which is why it can't be used
> to set static array size. What were you
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 at 12:34:20 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
I tried this, but it does not work correctly with slices.
The length of a slice is a runtime value, which is why it can't
be used to set static array size. What were you trying to
achieve? Avoid copying the input arrays, or
Am 05.07.2016 um 00:41 schrieb Rene Zwanenburg:
> On Monday, 4 July 2016 at 19:22:52 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
>> This looks really nice, but I have several occurences of this, with
>> different arrays (and lengths), so i would need to create several of
>> those structs. But it looks really clean
On Monday, 4 July 2016 at 19:22:52 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
This looks really nice, but I have several occurences of this,
with different arrays (and lengths), so i would need to create
several of those structs. But it looks really clean :)
You can use a template to remove the boilerplate.
Am 04.07.2016 um 19:24 schrieb ZombineDev:
> On Monday, 4 July 2016 at 14:31:41 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
>> In a project I am currently working on, I have lot's of code of the
>> following form:
>>
>> static immutable ubyte[4] sigma0 = [101, 120, 112, 97]; static
>> immutable ubyte[4] sigma1 =
Am 04.07.2016 um 20:33 schrieb Ali Çehreli:
> On 07/04/2016 07:31 AM, Johannes Loher wrote:
>> In a project I am currently working on, I have lot's of code of the
>> following form:
>>
>> static immutable ubyte[4] sigma0 = [101, 120, 112, 97];
>> static immutable ubyte[4] sigma1 = [110, 100, 32,
On 07/04/2016 07:31 AM, Johannes Loher wrote:
> In a project I am currently working on, I have lot's of code of the
> following form:
>
> static immutable ubyte[4] sigma0 = [101, 120, 112, 97];
> static immutable ubyte[4] sigma1 = [110, 100, 32, 51];
> static immutable ubyte[4] sigma2 = [ 50,
On Monday, 4 July 2016 at 14:31:41 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
In a project I am currently working on, I have lot's of code of
the following form:
static immutable ubyte[4] sigma0 = [101, 120, 112, 97]; static
immutable ubyte[4] sigma1 = [110, 100, 32, 51]; static
immutable ubyte[4] sigma2
In a project I am currently working on, I have lot's of code of the
following form:
static immutable ubyte[4] sigma0 = [101, 120, 112, 97];
static immutable ubyte[4] sigma1 = [110, 100, 32, 51];
static immutable ubyte[4] sigma2 = [ 50, 45, 98, 121];
static immutable ubyte[4] sigma3 = [116,
12 matches
Mail list logo
