On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 05:11:49PM +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 March 2017 at 00:39:56 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > I'm still working on that. :-)
>
> Hey, can you at least put scare quotes around "static foreach" each
> time it is used? There's no such
On Thursday, 23 March 2017 at 00:39:56 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I'm still working on that. :-)
Hey, can you at least put scare quotes around "static foreach"
each time it is used? There's no such thing as static foreach and
while we might call foreach over a typetuple "static", it isn't a
On 03/22/2017 05:39 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> the article is turning out to be quite a bit longer
I said "book"; didn't I? :)
Ali
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:12:06PM +, Jesse Phillips via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 19:05:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > There are actually (at least) TWO distinct phases of compilation
> > that are conventionally labelled "compile time":
> >
> > 1) Template
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 19:05:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
There are actually (at least) TWO distinct phases of
compilation that are conventionally labelled "compile time":
1) Template expansion / AST manipulation, and:
2) CTFE (compile-time function evaluation).
This was an awesome
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 19:05:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
There are actually (at least) TWO distinct phases of
compilation that are conventionally labelled "compile time":
1) Template expansion / AST manipulation, and:
2) CTFE (compile-time function evaluation).
[ ... ]
Template
On Sunday, 19 March 2017 at 00:18:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Haha, I don't think I'm up for writing a book... and I don't
really keep a blog either. But perhaps a writeup on
wiki.dlang.org is in order.
This particular topic, I think, is something somebody *should*
write about, because it
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 17:18:15 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 02:52:39PM -0700, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> > On 03/17/2017 12:05 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> > > 1) Template expansion / AST manipulation, and:
> > >
>
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 02:52:39PM -0700, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On 03/17/2017 12:05 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>
> > 1) Template expansion / AST manipulation, and:
> >
> > 2) CTFE (compile-time function evaluation).
> >
> > Not clearly understanding
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 19:05:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 03:14:08PM +, Hussien via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...]
[...]
This appears to be yet another case of the term "compile-time"
causing confusion, because it's actually an ambiguous term. I
actually
On 03/17/2017 12:05 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
1) Template expansion / AST manipulation, and:
2) CTFE (compile-time function evaluation).
Not clearly understanding the distinction between the two often leads to
confusion and frustration at why the compiler isn't doing "what
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 03:14:08PM +, Hussien via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> What I am talking about is
>
> how the statement
>
> static if (x) continue;
> pragma(msg, "called");
>
> vs
>
> static if (x) { } else
> pragma(msg, "not called");
>
>
> They are both semantically
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 15:14:08 UTC, Hussien wrote:
What I am talking about is
If you want to add a new feature, `static foreach`, that has
static continue and static break, I can get behind that, but
that's a new feature, not a bug in the existing feature. You
think it is something it
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 14:27:25 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 13:53:58 UTC, Hussien wrote:
Yes, but you have a nested foreach loop. One runtime and one
compile time. The break goes with the runtime loop... but
NORMAL programming logic tells us that the break goes
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 13:53:58 UTC, Hussien wrote:
Yes, but you have a nested foreach loop. One runtime and one
compile time. The break goes with the runtime loop... but
NORMAL programming logic tells us that the break goes with the
loop that it exists in.
It did. It broke the loop
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 13:10:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
it looks like break and continue _are_ used at compile time,
since it prints
They are working exactly the same way as any other loop. The fact
that it is unrolled and the dead code removed from the binary is
an implementation
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 13:10:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2017 11:53:41 Michael via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 11:30:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 01:55:19 Hussien via
> Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>
> I
On Friday, March 17, 2017 11:53:41 Michael via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 11:30:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 01:55:19 Hussien via
> > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> >
> > I tend to agree with this. If the foreach is static, and
> >
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 11:30:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2017 01:55:19 Hussien via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I tend to agree with this. If the foreach is static, and
continue and break are just going to be ignored, then they
should just be illegal. Allowing
On Friday, March 17, 2017 01:55:19 Hussien via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 01:41:47 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 01:34:52 UTC, Hussien wrote:
> >> Seems like continue needs to be static aware.
> >
> > That's not a bug, pragma is triggered
Dne 17.3.2017 v 02:34 Hussien via Digitalmars-d-learn napsal(a):
foreach (y; aliasSeqOf!["a", "b", "c"])
{
static if (y == "a") { }
else
pragma(msg, y);
}
works but
foreach (y; aliasSeqOf!["a", "b", "c"])
{
static if (y == "a") continue
pragma(msg, y);
}
fails.
Seems like continue needs to
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 01:41:47 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 01:34:52 UTC, Hussien wrote:
Seems like continue needs to be static aware.
That's not a bug, pragma is triggered when the code is
*compiled*, not when it is run. The code is compiled, even if
it is
On Friday, 17 March 2017 at 01:34:52 UTC, Hussien wrote:
Seems like continue needs to be static aware.
That's not a bug, pragma is triggered when the code is
*compiled*, not when it is run. The code is compiled, even if it
is skipped over by a continue.
foreach (y; aliasSeqOf!["a", "b", "c"])
{
static if (y == "a") { }
else
pragma(msg, y);
}
works but
foreach (y; aliasSeqOf!["a", "b", "c"])
{
static if (y == "a") continue
pragma(msg, y);
}
fails.
Seems like continue needs to be static aware.
This leads to subtle bugs where one thinks the
24 matches
Mail list logo
