On Monday, 30 April 2018 at 10:57:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, April 30, 2018 10:36:52 bauss via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 at 04:56:26 UTC, lempiji wrote:
> On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 02:59:16 UTC, Dr.No wrote:
>> In C# you can have a readon
On Monday, April 30, 2018 10:36:52 bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 April 2018 at 04:56:26 UTC, lempiji wrote:
> > On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 02:59:16 UTC, Dr.No wrote:
> >> In C# you can have a readonly member assignable either at
> >> declaratio
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 at 04:56:26 UTC, lempiji wrote:
On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 02:59:16 UTC, Dr.No wrote:
In C# you can have a readonly member assignable either at
declaration or constructor time, like this:
class C
{
readonly myClass mc;
this()
{
mc = new myClass
On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 02:59:16 UTC, Dr.No wrote:
In C# you can have a readonly member assignable either at
declaration or constructor time, like this:
class C
{
readonly myClass mc;
this()
{
mc = new myClass();
}
void doSomething()
{
mc = new myClass(); // wrong
On Friday, April 27, 2018 02:59:16 Dr.No via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> In C# you can have a readonly member assignable either at
> declaration or constructor time, like this:
>
> class C
> {
>readonly myClass mc;
>
>this()
>{
> mc = new m
In C# you can have a readonly member assignable either at
declaration or constructor time, like this:
class C
{
readonly myClass mc;
this()
{
mc = new myClass();
}
void doSomething()
{
mc = new myClass(); // wrong! result in compiler error, mc is
readonly
}
}
Does D
On 03/15/2018 03:16 AM, Andrey wrote:
Hello, is there way to declare read only field for class type with
ability to call inner non constant methods? i.e.:
class A {
int value = 12;
void updateValue() {
value = 13;
}
}
class B {
const A a;
this() {
a = new
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 13:44:20 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:57:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:55:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
class A {
private int _value = 12;
int value() @property { return _value; }
void updateValue() {
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 13:44:20 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:57:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:55:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
[...]
Sorry. I overlooked that B.a is const.
It still works, the `value` just needs to be `const` (or
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:57:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:55:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
class A {
private int _value = 12;
int value() @property { return _value; }
void updateValue() { value = 13; }
}
...
auto a = new A();
writeln(a.value);
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:16:49 UTC, Andrey wrote:
Hello, is there way to declare read only field for class type
with ability to call inner non constant methods? i.e.:
class A {
int value = 12;
void updateValue() {
value = 13;
}
}
class B {
const A a;
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:16:49 UTC, Andrey wrote:
Hello, is there way to declare read only field for class type
with ability to call inner non constant methods? i.e.:
class A {
int value = 12;
void updateValue() {
value = 13;
}
}
class B {
const A a;
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10:55:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
class A {
private int _value = 12;
int value() @property { return _value; }
void updateValue() { value = 13; }
}
...
auto a = new A();
writeln(a.value);
a.updateValue();
writeln(a.value);
Sorry. I overlooked that
Hello, is there way to declare read only field for class type
with ability to call inner non constant methods? i.e.:
class A {
int value = 12;
void updateValue() {
value = 13;
}
}
class B {
const A a;
this() {
a = new A();
a.updateValue(); //
I believe it's a design choice, if so, could someone explain why?
is immutable better than C#'s readonly so that the readonly
keyword isn't even needed? for example, I'd like to declare a
member as readonly but I can't do it directly because immutable
create a new type (since it's a type
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 20:12:12 UTC, Assembly wrote:
I believe it's a design choice, if so, could someone explain
why? is immutable better than C#'s readonly so that the
readonly keyword isn't even needed? for example, I'd like to
declare a member as readonly but I can't do it directly
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 22:11:16 UTC, sigod wrote:
`new immutable(MyClass)()` is invalid code.
It's perfectly fine, actually.
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 20:12:12 UTC, Assembly wrote:
I believe it's a design choice, if so, could someone explain
why? is immutable better than C#'s readonly so that the
readonly keyword isn't even needed? for example, I'd like to
declare a member as readonly but I can't do it directly
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 22:22:46 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 22:11:16 UTC, sigod wrote:
`new immutable(MyClass)()` is invalid code.
It's perfectly fine, actually.
Yes, you're right. It seems I've mistyped `immutable` when was
checking it with compiler.
On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 at 19:30:06 UTC, tcak wrote:
Is there any way to define a variable or an attribute as
read-only without defining a getter function/method for it?
Thoughts behind this question are:
1. For every reading, another function call process for CPU
while it could directly
Is there any way to define a variable or an attribute as
read-only without defining a getter function/method for it?
Thoughts behind this question are:
1. For every reading, another function call process for CPU while
it could directly read the value from memory.
2. Repetition of same name
can clean it up if it annoys you with something like this:
mixin template readonly(T, string name)
{
mixin(`private T _`~name~`;T `~name~`()@property{return _`~name~`;}`);
}
Use it like:
class Foo
{
// injects a private int _x, public int x()
mixin readonly!(int, x);
}
, the
members would need to have different names:
class Foo {
union {
private int a;
public int b;
}
}
Hm.. that doesn't provide readonly access to either a or b.
But it gave me an idea:
class Foo {
union {
private int _a;
public const int
, the
members would need to have different names:
class Foo {
union {
private int a;
public int b;
}
}
Hm.. that doesn't provide readonly access to either a or b.
But it gave me an idea:
class Foo {
union {
private int _a;
public const int
On 9/27/14 5:48 AM, Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= schue...@gmx.net
Yes, that's what I originally intended. Just forgot the const, and
didn't even notice it after I reread it :-P
I wondered... ;)
-Steve
I'm translated to D within my
limited knowledge. I don't do much OOP, maybe it's possible and I
don't know. I'm using @property to make 'a' accessible and
readonly at same time but I wanted to do that without this a_
extra variable, i.e, only the methods within the Foo class can
assign a new
a()
{
return a;
}
}
This is the C#'s to do which I'm translated to D within my
limited knowledge. I don't do much OOP, maybe it's possible and
I don't know. I'm using @property to make 'a' accessible and
readonly at same time but I wanted to do that without this a_
extra variable, i.e
a;
this (int x)
{
a = 2 * x;
}
}
void main()
{
Foo f = new Foo(21);
writeln(f.a); // output value of a
Foo f2 = f;// copy works
f2 = f;// assignment works
// f.a = 10; // compile error: a is readonly outside Foo's methods.
}
Ali
a()
{
return a;
}
}
This is the C#'s to do which I'm translated to D within my
limited knowledge. I don't do much OOP, maybe it's possible and
I don't know. I'm using @property to make 'a' accessible and
readonly at same time but I wanted to do that without this a_
extra variable, i.e
Marc Schütz:
Alternatively, you could create a union with a private and a
public member with the same types, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Besides, the members would need to have different names:
class Foo {
union {
private int a;
public int b;
}
On Friday, 26 September 2014 at 17:52:58 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Marc Schütz:
Alternatively, you could create a union with a private and a
public member with the same types, but I wouldn't recommend
it. Besides, the members would need to have different names:
class Foo {
union {
{
private int a;
public int b;
}
}
Hm.. that doesn't provide readonly access to either a or b.
But it gave me an idea:
class Foo {
union {
private int _a;
public const int a;
}
void setA(int x) { _a = x; }
}
Hot damn! It works too :) Can't
On Tuesday, 24 December 2013 at 16:11:15 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/24/2013 04:13 AM, Lemonfiend wrote:
std.file.rmdirRecurse refuses to remove readonly files.
How would I go about deleting them anyway?
Call std.file.setAttributes() first, which has apparently been
added just three days
std.file.rmdirRecurse refuses to remove readonly files.
How would I go about deleting them anyway?
On 12/24/2013 04:13 AM, Lemonfiend wrote:
std.file.rmdirRecurse refuses to remove readonly files.
How would I go about deleting them anyway?
Call std.file.setAttributes() first, which has apparently been added
just three days ago: :)
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob
I'm a C# programmer, when I apply IoC pattern I use readonly
keyword
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/acdd6hb7%28v=vs.71%29.aspx)
in this manner:
:// C# code
:interface IFoo {
: void Fun();
:}
:
:class Foo: IFoo {
: void Fun() {...}
:}
:class Bar {
: private readonly IFoo foo
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 09:02:31 UTC, o3o wrote:
I'm a C# programmer, when I apply IoC pattern I use readonly
keyword
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/acdd6hb7%28v=vs.71%29.aspx)
in this manner:
:// C# code
:interface IFoo {
: void Fun();
:}
:
:class Foo: IFoo {
: void Fun
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 10:26:55 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 09:02:31 UTC, o3o wrote:
I'm a C# programmer, when I apply IoC pattern I use
readonly keyword
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/acdd6hb7%28v=vs.71%29.aspx)
in this manner:
:// C# code
On 2013-02-04 10:02, o3o wrote:
I'm a C# programmer, when I apply IoC pattern I use readonly keyword
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/acdd6hb7%28v=vs.71%29.aspx) in
this manner:
:// C# code
:interface IFoo {
: void Fun();
:}
:
:class Foo: IFoo {
: void Fun() {...}
:}
:class Bar
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 10:26:55 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
[cut]
So.. Every method you call through a const instance must also
be const, otherwise you have the ability to change something
that should be a constant.
Thanks simendsjo, now I get it...
So, let me continue the example (I remove
First, AFAIK, there is no equivalent of C# readonly in D,
despite the fact that D uses 3 keywords for various kinds of
immutability.
Second, here you can find a mocking library for D:
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmocks/wiki/DMocks
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 13:35:24 UTC, o3o wrote
On 2013-02-04 14:35, o3o wrote:
So, let me continue the example (I remove const for simplicity)...
I would like check that bar.gun() call fun() function from IFoo
unittest {
auto foo = new MockIFoo(); //Will not compile.Mock doesn't (yet)
exist
auto bar = new Bar(foo);
On 07/12/12 01:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:56:23 Artur Skawina wrote:
Can anybody think of a reason to keep the current (broken) behavior?
Easily.
You misunderstand the current (broken) behavior part - it is about
what 'C*' is, it is not at all about class
This escapes a stack reference.
Ins't b supposed to be allocated on the heap?
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 08:34:28 Tobias Pankrath wrote:
This escapes a stack reference.
Ins't b supposed to be allocated on the heap?
The object is. The reference is not. b is taking the address of the
reference, not the object.
- Jonathan M Davis
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 06:34:29 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
This escapes a stack reference.
Ins't b supposed to be allocated on the heap?
The Bar instance is, but the pointer to it is not. Making _b a
Rebindable instead of using a pointer (to what effectively is a
pointer to the
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 06:48:59 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 06:34:29 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
This escapes a stack reference.
Ins't b supposed to be allocated on the heap?
The Bar instance is, but the pointer to it is not. Making _b a
Rebindable
to be referred to by
references, _not_ be pointed to by pointers.
Rebindable is the correct solution to this readonly issue.
- Jonathan M Davis
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 08:56:39 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 07/11/12 09:00, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
Bar b = new Bar;
auto b2 = b; // type of b2 is Bar*
So does it meen, that a pointer of type Bar* does not point to
the real object?
Yeah, unfortunately.
Can anybody think of a reason
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 09:49:43 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 08:56:39 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 07/11/12 09:00, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
Bar b = new Bar;
auto b2 = b; // type of b2 is Bar*
So does it meen, that a pointer of type Bar* does not point
to the
On 07/11/12 11:49, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 08:56:39 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 07/11/12 09:00, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
Bar b = new Bar;
auto b2 = b; // type of b2 is Bar*
So does it meen, that a pointer of type Bar* does not point to the real
object?
Yeah,
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 10:00:33 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
The languages conflates reference and instance type for
classes. See here http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/a55ad2b6 . I wouldn't
say this should change but it is a minor inconsistency I just
stumbled on.
This is not an inconsistency,
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 10:05:40 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
Because it doesn't let you have a real pointer to a class.
What is a »real pointer«? Class references are really just
pointers, in a way – you can cast them to void*.
The obvious alternative would be:
auto r = new Bar();
On 07/11/2012 08:52 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
I fail to see anything inconsistent here.
Most other operations act on the object:
class B
{
// ...
}
auto b = new B();
++b;// on the object
b b; // on the object
// etc.
b; // on the reference
That can be seen as an
On 07/11/12 17:54, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 10:05:40 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
Because it doesn't let you have a real pointer to a class.
What is a »real pointer«? Class references are really just pointers, in a way
– you can cast them to void*.
A real pointer
On Tuesday, 10 July 2012 at 19:27:56 UTC, Namespace wrote:
Maybe D need's a readonly keyword.
[...]
Or has D an alternative?
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 09:51:37 Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/11/2012 08:52 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
I fail to see anything inconsistent here.
Most other operations act on the object:
class B
{
// ...
}
auto b = new B();
++b; // on the object
b b; // on the object
// etc.
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 23:09:17 Artur Skawina wrote:
The advantages of having pointers to classes? Eg solving the problem that
triggered this thread w/o hacks like ClassPtr (Rebindable is an even worse
hack). [1]
You'd also lose polymorphism, which you don't with Rebindable. In D,
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:56:23 Artur Skawina wrote:
Can anybody think of a reason to keep the current (broken) behavior?
Easily.
Making Object* point to the object itself rather than the reference would be
so broken that it's not even funny. I can understand why you would think that
Maybe D need's a readonly keyword.
Sometimes i have a class which can take an object from
everywhere to store it. So it can not be const, because i didn't
just initialized it with a ctor.
But i don't want to change the object, i only want to read or
call const methods. What now?
I'd suggest
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:27:54 +0200, Namespace rswhi...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Maybe D need's a readonly keyword.
Sometimes i have a class which can take an object from everywhere to
store it. So it can not be const, because i didn't just initialized it
with a ctor.
But i don't want
On Tuesday, 10 July 2012 at 19:27:56 UTC, Namespace wrote:
Maybe D need's a readonly keyword.
Sometimes i have a class which can take an object from
everywhere to store it. So it can not be const, because i
didn't just initialized it with a ctor.
But i don't want to change the object, i only
const(T)* ?
Example?
On 07/10/2012 03:53 PM, Namespace wrote:
const(T)* ?
Example?
class Bar
{}
class Foo
{
const(Bar) * _b;
void SetBar(const(Bar) * b) {
_b = b;
}
}
void main()
{
auto b = new Bar();
auto f = new Foo();
f.SetBar(b);
}
Ali
class Bar
{}
class Foo
{
const(Bar) * _b;
void SetBar(const(Bar) * b) {
_b = b;
}
}
void main()
{
auto b = new Bar();
auto f = new Foo();
f.SetBar(b);
}
Ali
Hmm... That's good. Thanks.
On 07/11/2012 12:58 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/10/2012 03:53 PM, Namespace wrote:
const(T)* ?
Example?
class Bar
{}
class Foo
{
const(Bar) * _b;
void SetBar(const(Bar) * b) {
_b = b;
}
}
void main()
{
auto b = new Bar();
auto f = new Foo();
66 matches
Mail list logo
