Is it legal/possible to overload the unary * operator? Also is it
legal/possible to individually overload the comparison operators
and not return a bool?
(Before you ask no I'm not crazy, I am trying to make a library
solution to multiple address spaces for supporting OpenCL/CUDA in
D, and
On average there would be less than 4 bytes remaining to compare.
So a simple straightforward byte comparison should do the job
efficiently.
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 20:40:52 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 18:15:16 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 17:38:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
And if you're not simply comparing for equality, what are you
looking to figure out? Without more information about what
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 16:46:34 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
you should see the problem. Here's the correct line!
writeRegistryKeys(k.getKey(key.name()));
this just occurred to me i tried to keep to the example but i
shouldn't have. Since you already have the inner key, just pass
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 20:51:19 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 20:40:52 UTC, qznc wrote:
[...]
Isn't that something that the compiler should optimize for you
when you do an equality comparison?
Is it really faster than ldc (with all optimzations turned on)?
It can be faster
On Friday, 27 May 2016 at 08:59:43 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
Yes indeed it does. Thanks. Something in my version must have
been different.
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 20:40:52 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 18:15:16 UTC, qznc wrote:
[...]
Ok, to answer my own question, this looks good:
bool string_cmp_opt(immutable(ubyte)[] x, immutable(ubyte)[] y)
{
pragma(inline, false);
if (x.length != y.length) return
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 17:42:48 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
Worse I'm not sure if the code generation already does that
and possibly does a better job than what we could do by hand...
Not with dmd v2.071.0 or ldc 0.17.1.
At least not in all the variations I tried to trick them with,
like
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 18:15:16 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 17:38:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
And if you're not simply comparing for equality, what are you
looking to figure out? Without more information about what
you're trying to do, it's kind of hard to help you.
If
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 19:52:37 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
Do yo have a simple, concise runnable example to show ?
This is the example I was using to test solutions, it's similar
to where I encountered the problem in the first place
import core.stdc.stdlib : malloc, free;
import
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 19:09:13 UTC, pineapple wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 18:52:36 UTC, pineapple wrote:
What's the best way to handle something like this?
Well I did get something to work but it's ugly and I refuse to
believe there isn't a better way to handle this.
Where `Range`
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 18:52:36 UTC, pineapple wrote:
What's the best way to handle something like this?
Well I did get something to work but it's ugly and I refuse to
believe there isn't a better way to handle this.
Where `Range` is an alias to a struct with an immutable member,
and
I found another post on this subject and the advice there was
"don't put const members in your structs" -
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/m87ln2$idv$1...@digitalmars.com
This doesn't work out so well when the templated struct is
referring to what happens to be a const array.
I thought I could
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 17:38:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
And if you're not simply comparing for equality, what are you
looking to figure out? Without more information about what
you're trying to do, it's kind of hard to help you.
If I write the comparison naively, the assembly clearly
On 5/28/16 7:50 AM, Lodovico Giaretta wrote:
Let's say I have a generic function that uses pointers. It will be
inferred @system by the compiler, but I know that the pointer usage can
be @trusted.
The problem is that if I declare the function @trusted, I'm also
implicitly trusting any call to
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 17:38:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
In what way are you trying to compare them? If all you're doing
is comparing them for equality, then just use ==. e.g.
if(str1 == str2)
{
}
And if you're not simply comparing for equality, what are you
looking to figure out?
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 17:13:49 qznc via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Given two string (or char[] or ubyte[]) objects, I want to
> compare them. The naive loop accesses the arrays byte-wise. How
> could I turn this into a word-wise compare for better performance?
>
> Is a cast into size_t[] ok?
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 17:13:49 UTC, qznc wrote:
Given two string (or char[] or ubyte[]) objects, I want to
compare them. The naive loop accesses the arrays byte-wise. How
could I turn this into a word-wise compare for better
performance?
Is a cast into size_t[] ok? Some Phobos helper
Given two string (or char[] or ubyte[]) objects, I want to
compare them. The naive loop accesses the arrays byte-wise. How
could I turn this into a word-wise compare for better performance?
Is a cast into size_t[] ok? Some Phobos helper functions?
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 15:48:49 UTC, TheDGuy wrote:
Hello,
i am wondering what is wrong with my code:
import std.windows.registry;
import std.stdio;
void main(){
Key lclM = Registry.localMachine();
Key hrdw = lclM.getKey("HARDWARE");
writeRegistryKeys(hrdw);
}
void
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 11:05:21 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I'm currently implementing a hash map as an exercise and
wondered if there is a built-in function I could use to hash
keys effectively? What I'm looking for is a function that
hashes any variable (of any type) to an integer.
I've
Hello,
i am wondering what is wrong with my code:
import std.windows.registry;
import std.stdio;
void main(){
Key lclM = Registry.localMachine();
Key hrdw = lclM.getKey("HARDWARE");
writeRegistryKeys(hrdw);
}
void writeRegistryKeys(Key k){
foreach(Key key; k.keys){
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 11:03:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
From what I can tell QtD is in need of effort or restarting.
I will probably give it another shot when D has better interop
with C++. Particularly, when multiple inheritance of C++
interfaces is implemented, Walter admits that
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 09:07:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 07:14:12 ParticlePeter via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Which of the op(Index) operators is responsible for enabling
this
kind of syntax?
Would it be possible to get it work with UFCS or would I have
to
El 29/05/16 a les 13:03, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn ha escrit:
> GKT+ has a reputation for being dreadful on OSX and even worse on
> Windows. Qt on the other hand has a reputation for being the most
> portable – though clearly wx is (arguable) the most portable.
>
> We have GtkD which
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 05:43:31 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 05:35:33 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Well then, this completely breaks my understanding of variable
scope.
OK, I see now at [1] the following:
" Immutable data doesn't have synchronization problems, so the
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 09:07:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 07:14:12 ParticlePeter via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
std.container.array.Array works with foreach via ranges.
foreach(e; myContainer)
{
}
gets lowered to
foreach(e; myContainer[])
{
}
which in
I'm currently implementing a hash map as an exercise and wondered
if there is a built-in function I could use to hash keys
effectively? What I'm looking for is a function that hashes any
variable (of any type) to an integer.
I've been looking at the `getHash` function of the `TypeInfo`
class
On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 13:57 +, qznc via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 at 09:41:10 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > I do not really have the proper resources to host such a
> > repository and because of this I have not built one. I know I
> > should rather than just
GKT+ has a reputation for being dreadful on OSX and even worse on
Windows. Qt on the other hand has a reputation for being the most
portable – though clearly wx is (arguable) the most portable.
We have GtkD which is brilliant, especially as it has GStreamer
support.
From what I can tell QtD is
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 07:14:12 ParticlePeter via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Which of the op(Index) operators is responsible for enabling this
> kind of syntax?
> Would it be possible to get it work with UFCS or would I have to
> wrap the array?
std.container.array.Array works with foreach via
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 06:49:42 UTC, chmike wrote:
What is the right way to use it ?
I answer to my self after testing so that people looking for that
info can find it here.
The right way would be
immutable Category category_;
Rebindable!(immutable Category) instance() { return
This code fails to compile:
void bar(alias f)() {
f();
}
void foo(alias f)() {
bar!f();
}
void main() {
void f()() {
}
foo!f();
}
Error: function test.main.f!().f is a nested function and cannot
be accessed from test.bar!(f).bar
But non-template nested functions are
On Friday, May 27, 2016 09:08:20 Marc Schütz via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 May 2016 at 06:23:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > The difference is that it's impossible to do
> > 10.opBinary!"+"(15), so if you're forced to do
> > foo.opBinary!"+"(bar) to get around a symbol
Which of the op(Index) operators is responsible for enabling this
kind of syntax?
Would it be possible to get it work with UFCS or would I have to
wrap the array?
On Saturday, 28 May 2016 at 21:21:34 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 05/28/2016 09:54 PM, chmike wrote:
The only inconvenience left is that we can't have mutable
references
to immutable objects.
There is std.typecons.Rebindable for that.
That would be a good news. What is the right way to use it ?
36 matches
Mail list logo
