On 12/31/20 8:54 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 01:43:50 UTC, Chris Bare wrote:
a1[10] = "testing a1";
this actually constructs a new thing since it is a straight x = y
assignment.
a2[10].name = "testing a2";
But this looks up something first. It
On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 01:43:50 UTC, Chris Bare wrote:
a1[10] = "testing a1";
this actually constructs a new thing since it is a straight x = y
assignment.
a2[10].name = "testing a2";
But this looks up something first. It doesn't construct a2[10],
I'm missing something about the way associative arrays are
allocated.
In the example below, case 1 and case 2 seem to be the same, a
type indexed by a long.
Case 2 fails with a Range violation.
Can someone explain the difference?
I found a work around (or the correct way) in case 3.
struct
Suppose I have some memory allocated on the heap, and I have
two pointers pointing to the beginning and end of a contiguous
segment
of that memory. Is there a way I can convert those two pointers
to an array slice without actually copying anything within the
segment?
Thx,
Eric
Eric:
Suppose I have some memory allocated on the heap, and I have
two pointers pointing to the beginning and end of a contiguous
segment
of that memory. Is there a way I can convert those two pointers
to an array slice without actually copying anything within the
segment?
Use something
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 19:43:00 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Eric:
Suppose I have some memory allocated on the heap, and I have
two pointers pointing to the beginning and end of a contiguous
segment
of that memory. Is there a way I can convert those two
pointers
to an array slice without
Eric:
Thanks. That really works. I timed doing
auto mySlice = ptr1[0 .. ptr2 - ptr1]; 1,000,000 times
versus
auto mySlice = ptr1[0 .. ptr2 - ptr1].dup; 1,000,000 times
and I am quite convinced the data is not being copied.
Take a look at the asm!
Bye,
bearophile
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 20:43:11 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Take a look at the asm!
Bye,
bearophile
I use DMD and Dub, how do I view the asm?
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 20:59:46 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 20:43:11 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Take a look at the asm!
Bye,
bearophile
I use DMD and Dub, how do I view the asm?
Actually I did't think to look at the asm, mainly because
I've never bothered to
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 21:50:25 UTC, Eric wrote:
objdump -d -M intel simpleOctal
Not sure what the switches are for;
-d
disassemble - Essential if you want to, well, disassemble.
-M intel
Intel syntax - Because no one likes ATT syntax. Wikipedia has a
comparison:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 05:46:07 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 06/10/2014 08:06 PM, Matt wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:30:01 UTC, WhatMeWorry wrote:
int[] array; // initially empty
array.length = 5; // now has 5 elements
while in Mr. Alexandrescu's book, it says
To create a
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 02:30:00 +
WhatMeWorry via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
In Mr. Cehreli's book it says
Additionally, the length of dynamic arrays can be changed by
assigning a value to this property:
int[] array; // initially empty
array.length = 5;
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:28:16 -0400, Kapps opantm2+s...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:30:01 UTC, WhatMeWorry wrote:
In Mr. Cehreli's book it says
Additionally, the length of dynamic arrays can be changed by assigning
a value to this property:
int[] array; // initially
In Mr. Cehreli's book it says
Additionally, the length of dynamic arrays can be changed by
assigning a value to this property:
int[] array; // initially empty
array.length = 5; // now has 5 elements
while in Mr. Alexandrescu's book, it says
To create a dynamic array, use a new expression (§
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:30:01 UTC, WhatMeWorry wrote:
In Mr. Cehreli's book it says
Additionally, the length of dynamic arrays can be changed by
assigning a value to this property:
int[] array; // initially empty
array.length = 5; // now has 5 elements
while in Mr. Alexandrescu's
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:30:01 UTC, WhatMeWorry wrote:
In Mr. Cehreli's book it says
Additionally, the length of dynamic arrays can be changed by
assigning a value to this property:
int[] array; // initially empty
array.length = 5; // now has 5 elements
while in Mr. Alexandrescu's
On 06/10/2014 08:06 PM, Matt wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:30:01 UTC, WhatMeWorry wrote:
int[] array; // initially empty
array.length = 5; // now has 5 elements
while in Mr. Alexandrescu's book, it says
To create a dynamic array, use a new expression (§ 2.3.6.1 on page 51)
as
yet another array question :
I have defined :
alias string[] surrealNum_segments;
alias string[string] surrealNum_segments_withID;
surrealNum_segments_withID BAR;
Is there a built in function FOO, such that i could also write:
FOO(surrealNum_segments) BAR;
instead
On 09.12.2013 23:03, seany wrote:
yet another array question :
I have defined :
alias string[] surrealNum_segments;
alias string[string] surrealNum_segments_withID;
surrealNum_segments_withID BAR;
Is there a built in function FOO, such that i could also write:
FOO(surrealNum_segments) BAR
consider the follwoing:
import tango.io.Stdout, tango.io.Path, tango.text.Util;
import std.algorithm, std.string , std.stdio, std.array,
std.conv, std.regex, std.typecons;
//i know al imports are not necessary for this example, just ^c^v
from my actual code
alias string[] surSegments
On 12/08/2013 03:51 AM, seany wrote:
consider the follwoing:
import tango.io.Stdout, tango.io.Path, tango.text.Util;
import std.algorithm, std.string , std.stdio, std.array, std.conv,
std.regex, std.typecons;
//i know al imports are not necessary for this example, just ^c^v from
my
On Sunday, 8 December 2013 at 13:47:43 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/08/2013 03:51 AM, seany wrote:
consider the follwoing:
import tango.io.Stdout, tango.io.Path, tango.text.Util;
import std.algorithm, std.string , std.stdio, std.array,
std.conv,
std.regex, std.typecons;
//i know al
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:09:08 -0400, Jesse Phillips
jessekphillip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:28:54 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
You can deallocate the original array. The soon-to-be-deprecated method
Note:
Hi!
I'm working on a library written in D.
After some tests I have discovered that my library leaks memory, those leaks
are caused by dynamics array that I use in my library.
My question is:
Should dynamics array be deallocated automatically when a procedure returns?
There is another way to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:06:34 -0400, Dax d...@mailinator.com wrote:
Hi!
I'm working on a library written in D.
After some tests I have discovered that my library leaks memory, those
leaks are caused by dynamics array that I use in my library.
My question is:
Should dynamics array be
On 09/20/2011 08:06 PM, Dax wrote:
Hi!
I'm working on a library written in D.
After some tests I have discovered that my library leaks memory, those leaks
are caused by dynamics array that I use in my library.
Does it 'leak'? What is your exact setup, why isn't the GC collecting
that
Does it 'leak'? What is your exact setup, why isn't the GC collecting
that memory?
I have a Label class with a text() property that calls the procedure
that I have written in my first post and returns the result.
I have posted here because I was looking the memory usage (more
precisely
To avoid having to change your other code, I'd do this:
wchar[] t = ...;
scope(exit) delete t; // add this line to the end of the function (after
returning)
There is another way, but it's not as easy:
// put this at the top of file
import core.memory;
...
scope(exit)
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 21:48:10 Christophe wrote:
To avoid having to change your other code, I'd do this:
wchar[] t = ...;
scope(exit) delete t; // add this line to the end of the function (after
returning)
There is another way, but it's not as easy:
// put this at the
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:28:54 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
You can deallocate the original array. The soon-to-be-deprecated method
(but easiest) is:
delete t;
To avoid having to change your other code, I'd do this:
wchar[] t = ...;
scope(exit) delete t; // add this line to the
On 16 July 2010 11:12, Heywood Floyd soul...@gmail.com wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
(...)
When we introduce templates, this should still work:
struct MyArray(T){
array[3] T a;
}
// Let's try
T == array[11] int
array[3] T a;
array[3] (array[11] int) a;
array[3] array[11] a;
Am 16.07.2010 11:12, schrieb Heywood Floyd:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
I do agree that, if possible, the language should match how most people
think. But in this case, it is impossible, because of templates. How
would the following example work with T = int[3], if arrays worked the
way you
On 16 July 2010 20:11, Mafi m...@example.org wrote:
Am 16.07.2010 11:12, schrieb Heywood Floyd:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
I do agree that, if possible, the language should match how most people
think. But in this case, it is impossible, because of templates. How
would the following
Mafi Wrote:
I don't really like it. Of course the order of indices feels better but
it breaks the rule of reading types from right to left. It also
introduces more parenthesis and a new keyword into types (amongst const,
immutable and delegate etc). Consider:
shared array[3](const(
Heywood Floyd:
First of all, I definitely think that how arrays are declared now would have
to stay just the way it is,
no matter what. I don't think stuff like that is changeable this late in a
language.
Recently I have suggested to remove the syntax:
new int[20];
And allow only:
new
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:57:13 -0400, Heywood Floyd wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
But then arrays would be different from all other types! If you have
an array of 3 Ts, that is written T[3], regardless of what T is. Now
consider these two cases:
A. T is an int. Then T[3]
Jonathan M Davis:
[5](int) const a;
Go language uses something similar, and I find it a bit better than D syntax.
Bye,
bearophile
Jonathan M Davis:
Personally, I'd advise you to just use dynamic arrays unless you do
some profiling and find that a static array is better in a particular case.
To program you need a less naive view. I sometimes start using dynamic arrays
everywhere because they are handy, then I profile code
On Thursday 15 July 2010 22:20:17 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Personally, I'd advise you to just use dynamic arrays unless you do
some profiling and find that a static array is better in a particular
case.
To program you need a less naive view. I sometimes start using dynamic
On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 13:57:13 Heywood Floyd wrote:
Thank you for the elaborate answer!
When you put it like that, it does make sense. But I'm sorry. I refuse. The
reason I refuse is those examples are void of any higher semantic meaning.
Once we add a semantic meaning, it simply
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:23:16 -0400, Heywood Floyd wrote:
bearophile Wrote:
Heywood Floyd:
This had me crazy. I ended up putting the brackets on the variable,
like
int marr[3][5];
then it worked like
marr[2][4] = 9;
That's present only for compatibility with C syntax, this
This had me crazy. I ended up putting the brackets on the variable, like
int marr[3][5];
then it worked like
marr[2][4] = 9;
Heywood Floyd:
This had me crazy. I ended up putting the brackets on the variable, like
int marr[3][5];
then it worked like
marr[2][4] = 9;
That's present only for compatibility with C syntax, this means that you can
use it to perform a quicker port of C code to D, but you are supposed
bearophile Wrote:
Heywood Floyd:
This had me crazy. I ended up putting the brackets on the variable, like
int marr[3][5];
then it worked like
marr[2][4] = 9;
That's present only for compatibility with C syntax, this means that you can
use it to perform a quicker port of C code
Heywood Floyd:
Aha, good to know! Thanks!
(So this might go away in the future? Or require a -cstyle compile flag?)
It's just an idea of mine, my weight in D design is near zero, and Walter
doesn't love warnings. I don't know if C-style array definitions will ever go
away from D, don't hold
Hello.
I'm wondering why in D if you declare a fixed multi dimensional array, you
have to reverse the index order to access an element. I know it has something
to do with how tightly [] bind, but the consequence is that it seems so
different to other languages, it makes it error prone. So
dcoder gtdeg...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm wondering why in D if you declare a fixed multi dimensional array,
you
have to reverse the index order to access an element. I know it has
something
to do with how tightly [] bind, but the consequence is that it seems so
different to other languages, it
Hello dcoder,
Hello.
I'm wondering why in D if you declare a fixed multi dimensional array,
you have to reverse the index order to access an element.
When declaring an array, the base type is getting wrapped. When using an
array, the base types get unwrapped.
Because both forms place the
48 matches
Mail list logo
