On Friday, 8 May 2015 at 11:25:26 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
Could the scope keyword be used here?
Could the work done in DIP-25 be reused here, Walter?
I had `scope!(const ...)` in my original proposal [1] to handle
exactly this problem. The latest iteration doesn't have it as an
explicit
On Friday, 8 May 2015 at 11:32:50 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
On Friday, 8 May 2015 at 11:29:53 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
Such a feature would make the usage of this pattern very
(perhaps even absolutely) safe from a memory corruption point
of view.
An alternative non-restrictive (relaxed)
On Friday, 8 May 2015 at 11:29:53 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
Such a feature would make the usage of this pattern very
(perhaps even absolutely) safe from a memory corruption point
of view.
I guess I should have posted this on digitalmars.D instead ...
I use a lot of file parsing looking like
alias T = double;
T[] values;
foreach (line; File(path).byLine)
{
foreach (part; line.splitter(separator))
{
values ~= part.to!T;
}
}
The key D thing here is that this is _both_ fast (because no
copying of file-memory-slices needs
On Friday, 8 May 2015 at 11:25:26 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
Such a feature would make the usage of this pattern very
(perhaps even absolutely) safe from a memory corruption point
of view.
Correction: Not exactly memory corruption point of view. Rather
to avoid logical bugs when
