Re: Beginner ?. Why does D suggest to learn java
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 02:00:42 UTC, RBfromME wrote: but i don't find the basics any easier to learn than D's. The biggest issue i personal find in getting deeper into a language is the docs and examples. The python examples, beyond the basics usually get write into OO so you find your self trying to figure out OO while trying to sift through the examples. Makes it a little harder to get going and figure out the available libraries while trying to figure OO at the same time. If you find D more fun, then use D, but OO is little more than representing aspects of real physical objects in the computer: If you want to write a program about cars you could group properties such as weight, top-speed and build-year and call that Vehicle, then add number of wheels and motorsize and call it Car or some other properties and call it Boat. Add a function print() to display all the info to each class Vehicle, Car and Boat. Then you can create a list of vehicles that store different properties for different types of vehicles while being able to treat all cars and boats the same when printing them. That's basically it. Nothing magic. The most important aspect of learning how to program is what universities tend to call datastructures and algorithms. The basics is probably just 2-4 weeks. If you already know Python a little bit you could try to use educational resources for Python and translate it into D, e.g.: http://interactivepython.org/courselib/static/pythonds/index.html The nice thing about Python that it is very close to what is called pseudo code, basically a shorthand used when sketching a program. Summing it up, I personally think the hardest part in learning to use a specific language is the docs and and examples because they all throw you write into OO and you spend more time trying to figure out OO instead of how to use the standard lib or third party lib to get a basic task done. You don't need to learn more OO than I wrote above, and perhaps not even that. What you need to learn to be productive in any imperative language is: 1. What an aggregate (of values) is, they are often called record, struct or class and how to create them. 2. Arrays and the provided operations on them (can be in language or libraries) 3. How to create links between aggregates (called references or pointers) Then pick up an online course or book on data structures and algorithms. Introductory books and courses teach roughly the same stuff, so pick anyone you like. Understanding libraries and their documentation becomes much easier when you know the basic terminology about data structures and algorithms. One of the most entertaining and useful courses in computer science.
Re: Beginner ?. Why does D suggest to learn java
On Friday, 17 October 2014 at 08:44:00 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Friday, 17 October 2014 at 01:05:37 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:52:14 + MachineCode via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: I don't understand. If at least it were C but java? why not D itself? C is *awful* as beginner's language. never ever let people start with C if you don't hate 'em. as for D... current version of D can be used, but with some precautions. we now have excellent book by Ali. (it's great, really! i believe that it must be featured on the front dlang.org page!) but java has alot more books and tutorials. not that D is bad for beginners, it's just has a smaller userbase. and all that things with classes are reference types and structs are not, empty array is not empty array but is empty array and so on D may be confusing a little. it's good to have some CS background to understood that things. just my cent and cent. Better, go with FreePascal http://www.freepascal.org/ and discover all that those features that many C advocates spread as being close to the machine and other C only features, aren't exclusive of it. Alongside support for real modules, OO and genericity. Then with a head clean of bad C influences, jump into D. -- Paulo Don't tell him that - he may discover Freepascal/Lazarus is the holy grail of GUI programming and may never try D... ;-) -=mike=-
gdc: Compile error with normalize from std.uni
I'm using gdc on Ubuntu 14.04. Is this ubuntu packaging issue?
bash:~/tmp$ cat test2.d
import std.uni, std.stdio;
void main() {
writeln(normalize(Hello));
}
bash:~/tmp$ gdc test2.d
/usr/include/d/4.8/std/uni.d:6301: error: undefined identifier
tuple
/usr/include/d/4.8/std/uni.d:6262: error: template instance
std.uni.seekStable!(cast(NormalizationForm)0, char) error
instantiating
/usr/include/d/4.8/std/uni.d:6087: note: instantiated from here:
splitNormalized!(cast(NormalizationForm)0, char)
test2.d:4: note: instantiated from here:
normalize!(cast(NormalizationForm)0, char)
/usr/include/d/4.8/std/uni.d:6271: error: undefined identifier
tuple
/usr/include/d/4.8/std/uni.d:6087: error: template instance
std.uni.splitNormalized!(cast(NormalizationForm)0, char) error
instantiating
test2.d:4: note: instantiated from here:
normalize!(cast(NormalizationForm)0, char)
test2.d:4: error: template instance
std.uni.normalize!(cast(NormalizationForm)0, char) error
instantiating
bash:~/tmp$ gdc --version
gdc (Ubuntu 4.8.2-19ubuntu1) 4.8.2
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Re: Returning multiple arrays from function - struct or byref the only option?
Thanks for the thoughts Meta and Ali.
Laeeth.
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:56:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 10/15/2014 09:48 AM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
struct RetStruct
{
double[] a;
double[] b;
}
RetStruct myfunction(double x)
That's my preference. Tuples would work as well but they have
two minor issues for me:
- Unlike a struct, the members are anonymous. (Yes, tuples
members can have names as well but not when returning or
creating conveniently by 'return tuple(a, b)'.)
- Unlike Python, there is no automatic tuple expansion so one
has to refer to the members as result[0] and result[1], which
is less readable than struct members. (Yes, there is some
support for tuple expansion e.g. in foreach but it has some
issues with the automatic foreach loop counter.)
Summary: I return by struct. :)
Ali
Re: gdc: Compile error with normalize from std.uni
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:01:51 + slycelote via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: I'm using gdc on Ubuntu 14.04. Is this ubuntu packaging issue? yes. current gdc works fine. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Returning multiple arrays from function - struct or byref the only option?
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:56:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
- Unlike a struct, the members are anonymous. (Yes, tuples
members can have names as well but not when returning or
creating conveniently by 'return tuple(a, b)'.)
This works, but I agree it is a bit obscure (you may want to add
it to your book if it's not already there):
import std.typecons;
Tuple!(int[], left, int[], right) foo(int n, int m)
{
return typeof(return)(new int[](n), new int[](m));
}
void main()
{
auto res = foo(2, 3);
assert(res.left.length == 2);
assert(res.right.length == 3);
}
The problem is that D does not allow implicit conversions when
returning results from a function. Tuple!(int[], int[]) is
implicitly castable to Tuple!(int[], left, int[], right), but
you cannot return the result of tuple(new int[](n), new int[](m))
from foo(), as they are technically still different types, which
would require an implicit conversion. This is (IMO) a problem;
it's extremely annoying when trying to use std.typecons.Algebraic.
Re: Recommended GUI library?
On 2014-10-17 18:34, K.K. wrote: I'm looking for suggestions for a GUI library, to create a somewhat light GUI that can also be created without too much fuss, and support for Windows Linux. Have a look at DWT [1]. It's basically the only D GUI framework that doesn't have any dependencies except for system libraries. [1] https://github.com/d-widget-toolkit/dwt -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: String created from buffer has wrong length and strip() result is incorrect
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 00:53:57 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:32:09 + Lucas Burson via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: Wow, your changes made it much simpler. Thank you for the suggestions and expertise ketmar :)
Re: String created from buffer has wrong length and strip() result is incorrect
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:56:09 + Lucas Burson via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: Wow, your changes made it much simpler. Thank you for the suggestions and expertise ketmar :) you're welcome. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Recommended GUI library?
Thanks for the extra suggestions! I'll check them out.
[OT] the uses of computing
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 00:06:10 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 23:31:45 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: You do realize that most people are clueless about how to fix those also, right? most people are stupid. No disagreement there, but even the smart ones can only learn so much. Would you require that how to fix all that mechanical stuff be taught in schools too? but it is! or at least it was. it's all simple physics, you know. not a rocket science. Many people do not learn simple physics in school, and even if they did, wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out how to fix a specific mechanical system like a washing machine from the general physical principles. Kids would never leave school if they had to learn all the stuff everybody says they should be forced to learn. ;) nobody should be *forced* to learn: it's pointless. yet kids are very curious, and they can be taught *alot* of things if they think that they are just playing. make it interesting, and you'll be amazed how much kids can learn almost without problems. Yeah, we agree if you truly mean making most of what they learn optional, not just fun but still required. Most of the stuff we force on kids today, like multiplication tables, how to divide numbers by hand, or memorizing historical dates, is utterly useless. Yet, civilization is made up of people like you, who would all miss those mechanical systems far more than computers. it's a huge difference between i miss my washing machine and all our communication and data processing systems are foobared. Yet, I bet you they'll want that washing machine working far more than the internet. They should use tools like Automator instead, no programming needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automator_(software) i wasn't talking about sorting out file mess. i was talking about tabular data processing, for example, with some logics and calculations that can't be done automatically without programming. Isn't that what people use Excel macros for? There are specialized tools for the job, that are more limited than full programming languages but easier to use for the average person. Tablets are optimized for basic usage what is basic usage? i really don't know what tablets are for. what i can do with it? watching movie? listening music? reading book? yes, tablets can do this... badly. what else? All of the above, anything you'd use a portable computer for that doesn't require much typing and would benefit from a larger screen than your smartphone. I wouldn't say they do it all badly: it's the most portable TV you could ever have, if you use it to watch video. And you're not limited to the junk on the idiot box, you can download any video from the web and watch on the go. Most websites benefit from a larger screen also. i can listen music with my N900, and it fits in my pocket. movies? on tablet screen? no, thanks. books? electronic books are better. I've watched parts of movies on my 4.7 smartphone screen, which happens to have the best display I've ever used. Tablets are even better for video. I don't read books anymore, but with their high-res displays up to 200-300 ppi these days, reading text is very nice on tablets too. tablets are like XML: bad for everything. Now that's just low, you can't compare anything to the utter junk that is XML. :) Most people just need a basic appliance that isn't going to catch viruses or require registry hacks. give 'em wooden board with painting. it's great! It's a little better than that. ;) It is completely different, because there are tools like Automator to help you automate your workflow without needing to write anything. oh, please. i can do batch renaming with wildcards, and for any task that is more complex than that there *is* a need to write logic. scripts. graphic programming is a dead end. people drop icons in favor of alphabet 'cause alphabet is just better. Actually, the progression went the other way, people dropped text UIs for graphical UIs. :) I'm not saying _you_ need to leave the terminal, but for most people GUI tools like Automator are enough. If you need to communicate something on paper- well, nobody uses paper these days i wish that the goverment of my country knows about that. and banking. somehow they still insist to have everything written on paper. Well, the government is the most backwards part of any country. For most people, that is a better route, particularly if they don't need to modify the script as they go and just need it written once. so instead of spending ten minutes to write the script they'll spend a day searching for someone to hire and pay him money. great. thanks to such people we have don't put your pet into microwave-like instructions. and that instructions are pointless 'cause such people never reads any instructions
Re: Any dub tips and tricks
There is a mistake in the dil package.json excludedSourceFiles should be an array of strings, not just a string. But I don't get those errors on my OSX.
Re: [OT] the uses of computing
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:42:50 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: most people are stupid. No disagreement there, but even the smart ones can only learn so much. that's why we should teach kids alot of things while their minds are clear and ready to absorb alot of knowledge. and, of course, we must teach them how to *use* that knowledge. Many people do not learn simple physics in school, and even if they did, wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out how to fix a specific mechanical system like a washing machine from the general physical principles. yes, figuring this out without manuals will be hard. but learning physics (proper learning of *anything* for that matter) will give 'em understanding of base principles (mechanics, electricity, etc) and the ability to extract information from books. it's enough for simple fixes that doesn't require to produce hi-tech parts. Yeah, we agree if you truly mean making most of what they learn optional, not just fun but still required. Most of the stuff we force on kids today, like multiplication tables, how to divide numbers by hand, or memorizing historical dates, is utterly useless. ah, i hated that so-called history lessons where i was forced to remebmer that in year i don't care about somebody who i don't care about did something i equally don't care about. ;-) yes, i'm sure that we should teach kids how to do things, not just making 'em remember that 4*8 is 32. tell 'em what multiplication is and then play games with them, games which involves using of multiplication. this way kids will learn how to use multiplication. no need to remember any tables. or let 'em build a simple robot and program it to do some funny things. it's exciting and they will learn many things about mechanics, electricity, programming... let 'em play a role of factory manager, for example, and they will develop a good understanding of how economics works. and so on. Yet, civilization is made up of people like you, who would all miss those mechanical systems far more than computers. it's a huge difference between i miss my washing machine and all our communication and data processing systems are foobared. Yet, I bet you they'll want that washing machine working far more than the internet. most people can't see a whole picture. it's bad. we must teach kids to understand how different things are interconnected too. Isn't that what people use Excel macros for? aren't writing excel macros a programming? There are specialized tools for the job, that are more limited than full programming languages but easier to use for the average person. i never meant that all people should learn full programming languages. they have to know how to write algorithms, but not necessary what pointer is or what is the difference between manual memory management and garbage collecting. yet if i'll show 'em simple recursive fibonacci function, they must be able to understand it. hey, it's lambda calculus, and lambda calculus is so simple, that even 7-year kid can understand it! i checked that, kids are really able to understand it. ;-) All of the above, anything you'd use a portable computer for that doesn't require much typing and would benefit from a larger screen than your smartphone. instagram and social networks. ;-) two of the most useless things on the planet. And you're not limited to the junk on the idiot box, you can download any video from the web and watch on the go. and can't easily mark and categorize that until someone wrote web-service for it. 'cause for doing it locally i need... ah, to write some scripts. and i have no keyboard (no, that on-screen crap may be good for tweeting, but it's generally unusable). i.e. tablets *are* idiot boxes, just with fancy pictures from over the world. I don't read books anymore even technical ones? ;-) but with their high-res displays up to 200-300 ppi these days, reading text is very nice on tablets too. i prefer to use some specialised device to reading text. it's smaller, it was made especially for reading texts and it can last alot longer without recharging. i mean that tablets can do all that things, but specialised devices are just better. and if i know that i'll have to spend some time waithing for something, i'll take my player and ebook with me. or subnotebook -- hey, it has real keyboard! tablets are like XML: bad for everything. Now that's just low, you can't compare anything to the utter junk that is XML. :) ah, you are right. tablets sometimes can be useful. ;-) Actually, the progression went the other way, people dropped text UIs for graphical UIs. :) that's 'cause they never used good UIs and we have no truly component environments. Oberon system was great even with it's TUI, and it was really exciting with it's gadgets UI. i'm still missing my Oberon system. by the way, if D will develop good runtime reflection (which is
Re: [OT] the uses of computing
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 20:50:42 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:42:50 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: most people are stupid. No disagreement there, but even the smart ones can only learn so much. that's why we should teach kids alot of things while their minds are clear and ready to absorb alot of knowledge. and, of course, we must teach them how to *use* that knowledge. So much of what's taught today is so worthless that I'm skeptical of anyone claiming kids should be taught a lot, as if you know what that is. And given our long history of barely being able to teach any knowledge, with almost no success in getting people to use it for something original, that seems like a dead end too. Better to just let people take their own path and find what works best for them. Many people do not learn simple physics in school, and even if they did, wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out how to fix a specific mechanical system like a washing machine from the general physical principles. yes, figuring this out without manuals will be hard. but learning physics (proper learning of *anything* for that matter) will give 'em understanding of base principles (mechanics, electricity, etc) and the ability to extract information from books. it's enough for simple fixes that doesn't require to produce hi-tech parts. I disagree, as there is a large gap of knowledge between the base principles and the complex systems we build on top. How many people would be able to diagnose and force reallocation of bad sectors in their hard disk if hit with that problem, given the basics of how hard disks work? I actually ran into this recently and found little info about it, meaning not many people do it. Yeah, we agree if you truly mean making most of what they learn optional, not just fun but still required. Most of the stuff we force on kids today, like multiplication tables, how to divide numbers by hand, or memorizing historical dates, is utterly useless. ah, i hated that so-called history lessons where i was forced to remebmer that in year i don't care about somebody who i don't care about did something i equally don't care about. ;-) yes, i'm sure that we should teach kids how to do things, not just making 'em remember that 4*8 is 32. tell 'em what multiplication is and then play games with them, games which involves using of multiplication. this way kids will learn how to use multiplication. no need to remember any tables. or let 'em build a simple robot and program it to do some funny things. it's exciting and they will learn many things about mechanics, electricity, programming... let 'em play a role of factory manager, for example, and they will develop a good understanding of how economics works. and so on. We agree that practical application is a better way to motivate learning than absorbing theory from a book first, at least for most students. But some kids are just not going to enjoy those multiplication games or robot building and I'd say it's better for them to choose something else to pursue, rather than forcing them to pick up multiplication when it's a completely useless skill, now that everybody carries around a calculator with them in their phone these days. Yet, civilization is made up of people like you, who would all miss those mechanical systems far more than computers. it's a huge difference between i miss my washing machine and all our communication and data processing systems are foobared. Yet, I bet you they'll want that washing machine working far more than the internet. most people can't see a whole picture. it's bad. we must teach kids to understand how different things are interconnected too. At this point, _I_ can't see your whole picture. :) I made a simple point, that building and fixing washing machines or software is something most people don't want to do. Saying they should learn those things anyway doesn't make sense. Isn't that what people use Excel macros for? aren't writing excel macros a programming? My understanding is that you can write simple mathematical formulas, which is as far as most probably go, even though it may also allow iteration and other programming constructs. My point, that I made below, is that people who need some of the power of programming without the training can use cruder tools like these most of the time. There are specialized tools for the job, that are more limited than full programming languages but easier to use for the average person. i never meant that all people should learn full programming languages. they have to know how to write algorithms, but not necessary what pointer is or what is the difference between manual memory management and garbage collecting. yet if i'll show 'em simple recursive fibonacci function, they must be able to understand it. hey, it's
Assignment to enumerated string, is content copied or array information?
enum Values: string{
NONE = ,
Value1 = Apple,
Value2 = Peach,
Value3 = Lemon
}
Values lastHeldValue = Value3;
Is the lastHeldValue just pointer + length information, and it
points to Lemon; or is Lemon copied to another place in
memory?
I am doing comparison as if( lastHeldValue == Value3 ) and am
not
sure what comparison operation it is doing in the background.
DDoc module description?
Although perhaps unnecessary, I added DDoc documentation to my module for a short description of the body. This showed up in the place I wanted it to be in when I built the html documentation, so I was pretty happy. (below the module name and before any module members) I then went to override the DDOC macro to set it up with the correct formatting with the rest of the site I'll be putting the documentation on. The single line documentation I had written for the module apparently does not reside in BODY, and with the new formatting, it just casts it to the bottom of the page. It now resides below the footer. Is there anything I can do to correct this? If not then I'll just say screw it and not bother, but I thought it looked pretty nice. Especially for modules that have more than one class in them.
Re: Assignment to enumerated string, is content copied or array information?
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 23:51:53 UTC, tcak wrote:
enum Values: string{
NONE = ,
Value1 = Apple,
Value2 = Peach,
Value3 = Lemon
}
Values lastHeldValue = Value3;
Is the lastHeldValue just pointer + length information, and
it
points to Lemon; or is Lemon copied to another place in
memory?
I am doing comparison as if( lastHeldValue == Value3 ) and am
not
sure what comparison operation it is doing in the background.
The value will be copied and pasted where you use a Values.
However, strings are cached in D, so the following problem will
print true for both checks.
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
enum s = test;
auto v1 = s;
auto v2 = s;
//Check that both point to the same string in memory
writeln(v1 is v2);
//Check that both have the same value
writeln(v1 == v2);
}
Because enum values are copied and pasted, it is usually a bad
idea to make an enum that contains arrays or classes, as
everywhere you use the enum values allocates a new array/object.
With strings it's okay, as they're cached.
How to convert from ubyte[] to and from float?
What is the best way to convert from a part of a ubyte[] to a float? I've tried converting the ubyte[] into a uint, but neither casting the uint to a float nor to!float work. I suppose I could use a trick record union, but that seems inelegant. If I use pointers, the alignment may (unpredictably) not be proper (whatever that means these days).
Re: [OT] the uses of computing
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 23:38:35 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: don't you think that we are going in circles now? not that i'm tired of this conversation, but i see that we get each other's POVs, and have no more arguments to convince each other. ;-) i respect your opinions but just don't agree with them. ;-) besides, it's increasingly hard for me to answer, 'cause my English writing skill is awful. i can understand you but can't clearly express myself. I don't read books anymore even technical ones? ;-) I think the only technical book I've read in the last decade is Andrei's TDPL, which I bought in print and got about halfway through. I've probably read bits and pieces of maybe five other non-technical books here and there in the same timespan, which were all given to me as gifts. I've never read an ebook, yet I read extensively online. Books are an outdated form, now that we have blogs. i believe that blog posts and textbooks compliments each other. i prefer textbook for learning new language, for example, and read blogs to learn some interesting/funny/hidden features. I don't know much about Oberon, but that gadgets UI sounds like it's still a GUI. sure, it's GUI, but with some consolish pieces dropped in. you can connect components and you can write some textual commands/scripts to modify component behavior. best from both worlds! ;-) I actually agree with you that some sort of component system like that is likely the future, even if it's only ultimately used to make developers' lives easier and largely unconfigured by users themselves it's simple enough for users to modify. changing layouts by dragging components, embedding components into components and so on. this things are mostly visual and easy. people love to customize their working environment if it's easy enough. ;-) though I haven't looked much into the complex historical reasons why it hasn't happened yet. 'cause so-called software industry is not ready to die yet. ;-) with proper component system there will be no much sense in selling applications. and selling components is much harder: how many people will buy e-mail data source component? it's not even visual! and selling e-mail reader is worthless, 'cause people will deconstruct it to basic parts and build their own application, and will not buy shiny new version with improved interface. they will not even buy the full package if they only need one part of it, like faster e-mail data source component. so the only way to keep software bussines (as we know it) running is turning component system back to non-component one. take, for example, COM technology (which is badly done, but still usable component system). how much software uses COM to decouple application in reusable parts? even microsoft realised that this will be disaster and turned COM to advancing scripting interface instead of truly component system. have you ever seen BlackBox Component Builder? it's written in Component Pascal, but the basic principles are language-independent. i'm dreaming about BCB with D as base language... No, never heard of it, sounds interesting. try it, it's fun and free! ;-) you'll see component programming system in action. it's not component OS, but it's great programming environment nevertheless. D is almost capable of powering such system. if only i had more free time and motivation... creating something BCB-like can be that killer app D needs. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to convert from ubyte[] to and from float?
On 10/18/2014 06:06 PM, Charles Hixson via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
What is the best way to convert from a part of a ubyte[] to a float?
I've tried converting the ubyte[] into a uint, but neither casting the
uint to a float nor to!float work.
I suppose I could use a trick record union, but that seems inelegant.
If I use pointers, the alignment may (unpredictably) not be proper
(whatever that means these days).
This is what I understood:
import std.exception;
ubyte[float.sizeof] toBytes(float f)
{
ubyte* beg = cast(ubyte*)f;
return beg[0..f.sizeof];
}
float toFloat(const(ubyte)[] bytes)
{
enforce(bytes.length = float.sizeof);
return *cast(float*)bytes.ptr;
}
void main()
{
float f = 1.5;
auto bytes = toBytes(f);
float f2 = toFloat(bytes);
assert(f2 == f);
}
There are no alignment issues because f and ubyte[float.sizeof] are not
related. If you meant that ubyte[] should be a reference to an existing
float, then toBytes must take by 'ref float' and then it can return a
ubyte[]. However, it would be the responsibility of the caller to ensure
that the float would live long enough.
If that happened, then there would be no alignment issues because we
would have started with a float anyway and the ubyte[] would be
referring to that float in memory.
Ali
