On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 22:42:15 UTC, SirNickolas wrote:
Hello! I'm new in D and it is amazing!
Can you tell me please if it is discouraged or deprecated to
call a function by just putting its name, without brackets?
It's quite unusual for me (used C++ and Python before), but I
can see
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 22:42:14 +, SirNickolas wrote:
Hello! I'm new in D and it is amazing!
Can you tell me please if it is discouraged or deprecated to call a
function by just putting its name, without brackets? It's quite unusual
for me (used C++ and Python before), but I can see this
On Monday, August 03, 2015 21:32:03 DLearner via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 13:45:01 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 21:58:48 UTC, QAston wrote:
Adding 1-indexed arrays to the language fixes nothing. Just
write your 1-indexed array type and if
On 08/03/2015 02:33 PM, ref2401 wrote:
On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 21:28:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
But you still need to communicate how many elements there are in the
array. (I used literal 3).
Yes I do. I hope there is a neat way to pass array's length too.
Not possible in C. :( Common
I have been writing bindings for the GDAL library (www.gdal.org).
I recently updated my bindings to the latest release of GDAL
(2.0).
Before adding my bindings to code.dlang.org I want to run some
tests. I've built GDAL2 locally and want to link my bindings to
this library. However, I
Hello! I'm new in D and it is amazing!
Can you tell me please if it is discouraged or deprecated to call
a function by just putting its name, without brackets? It's quite
unusual for me (used C++ and Python before), but I can see this
practice even in the official Phobos documentation:
```
On 8/3/15 5:23 PM, ref2401 wrote:
Hello everyone,
I pass a D array as void* into a function.
When I'm trying to cast a void* parameter to a D array I get 'Access
Violation' error.
However if I define ArrayLike struct which looks like D array then
casting will succeed.
What should I do? Should
On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 22:42:15 UTC, SirNickolas wrote:
Hello! I'm new in D and it is amazing!
Can you tell me please if it is discouraged or deprecated to
call a function by just putting its name, without brackets?
It's quite unusual for me (used C++ and Python before), but I
can see
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 02:26:17 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
So how can I force my application to link to my local copy of
GDAL2 at /home/craig2/code/gdal-2.0.0/lib64. Any help is
appreciated.
Hi,
I recently ran into similare problems, different lib.
Try changing:
lflags :
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 03:20:38 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
ldd gdaltest
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffe63381000)
libgdal.so.20 = not found
I can now run it with:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/craig2/code/gdal-2.0.0/lib64 ./gdaltest
But it appears the LD_LIBRARY_PATH hack is
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 02:45:21 UTC, Joakim Brännström
wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 02:26:17 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh
wrote:
So how can I force my application to link to my local copy of
GDAL2 at /home/craig2/code/gdal-2.0.0/lib64. Any help is
appreciated.
Hi,
I recently ran into
On 08/03/2015 02:23 PM, ref2401 wrote:
void funcLibC_Array(void* data) {
int[] arr = *cast(int[]*)data;
You are still in D, so int[] has a different meaning from a C array.
(D's arrays are array-like. ;) )
Since arr.ptr is the pointer to the first element, and since that is
exactly
Hello everyone,
I pass a D array as void* into a function.
When I'm trying to cast a void* parameter to a D array I get
'Access Violation' error.
However if I define ArrayLike struct which looks like D array
then casting will succeed.
What should I do? Should I stick to ArrayLike wrapper and
On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 21:28:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
But you still need to communicate how many elements there are
in the array. (I used literal 3).
Yes I do. I hope there is a neat way to pass array's length too.
On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 13:45:01 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 21:58:48 UTC, QAston wrote:
Adding 1-indexed arrays to the language fixes nothing. Just
write your 1-indexed array type and if you enjoy using it,
publish it as a library. Who knows, if demand is high it
On Sunday, August 02, 2015 21:51:48 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is my understanding below correct? Does any documentation need updating?
Operator precedence table lists !in as an operator:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Operator_precedence
Operator overloading documentation does
On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 08:54:32 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 at 11:47:29 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Yea, but that's not what I'm trying to achieve. I know how I
can pass something to `take` so as to e.g. obtain reference
semantics or whatever; what I'm trying
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 at 11:47:29 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Yea, but that's not what I'm trying to achieve. I know how I
can pass something to `take` so as to e.g. obtain reference
semantics or whatever; what I'm trying to achieve is a range
that _doesn't rely on the user
On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 09:01:51 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
It is now verified as safe by `return ref`.
Yes, until you pointed this out to me I'd been convinced that
classes were the way forward for RNGs. I think that `return ref`
is going to be a _very_ powerful tool for facilitating
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 at 09:35:53 UTC, DLearner wrote:
Does the D language set in stone that the first element of an
array _has_ to be index zero?
Wouldn't starting array elements at one avoid the common
'off-by-one' logic error, it does
seem more natural to begin a count at 1.
Actually,
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 21:58:48 UTC, QAston wrote:
Adding 1-indexed arrays to the language fixes nothing. Just
write your 1-indexed array type and if you enjoy using it,
publish it as a library. Who knows, if demand is high it may
even end up in phobos.
Oh, I don't think that's a good
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 at 09:35:53 UTC, DLearner wrote:
Does the D language set in stone that the first element of an
array _has_ to be index zero?
Wouldn't starting array elements at one avoid the common
'off-by-one' logic error, it does
seem more natural to begin a count at 1.
Actually,
22 matches
Mail list logo
