I'd take a look at why the error message says
`Future!(UserData)[]) to Future!(AnalyzeData)[]`
is AnalyzeData the type returned by ProcessResponceData?
Alternatively you could use a singly linked list and splice out
elements that pass the filter predicate. I think you'd have to
roll your own t
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 02:24:48 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Yeah... my problem is, that I don't know it at compile time.
You know it at language time :)
:)
The .init property is provided by the compiler, unless you
define it. It means the default value of the type.
Here, I'm t
Hi,
I'm using ArchLinux and the recent DMD from the Arch repositories
and my backtraces show no line numbers. I now that is an old
issue, but I'm back to D after a long pause and I thought that
this used to work out of the box.
My backtraces look likes this:
??:? pure @safe void
std.except
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 11:04:57 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
[...]
??:? pure @safe void
std.exception.bailOut!(Exception).bailOut(immutable(char)[],
ulong, const(char[])) [0xab5c9566]
??:? pure @safe bool std.exception.enforce!(Exception,
bool).enforce(bool, lazy const(char)[], immutabl
Hello!
We need some conditional compilation using 'version'.
Say we have some code to be compiled for X86 and X86_64.
How can we do that using predefined (or other) versions?
Examples:
version(X86 || X86_64) // failed
version(X86) || version(X86_64) // failed
The following works but it i
On 2017-10-31 14:46, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
Hello!
We need some conditional compilation using 'version'.
Say we have some code to be compiled for X86 and X86_64.
How can we do that using predefined (or other) versions?
Examples:
version(X86 || X86_64) // failed
version(X86) || version(X8
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:53:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2017-10-31 14:46, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
Hello!
We need some conditional compilation using 'version'.
Say we have some code to be compiled for X86 and X86_64.
How can we do that using predefined (or other) versions?
Examples:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:46:40 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
Hello!
You goal should be to describe features.
Version x86
... Version = I can stand on my head
...
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:22:37 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:46:40 UTC, Igor Shirkalin
wrote:
Hello!
You goal should be to describe features.
Version x86
... Version = I can stand on my head
...
pardon?
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:25:19 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:22:37 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:46:40 UTC, Igor Shirkalin
wrote:
Hello!
You goal should be to describe features.
Version x86
... Version = I can stand on m
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:31:17 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:25:19 UTC, Igor Shirkalin
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:22:37 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:46:40 UTC, Igor Shirkalin
wrote:
Hello!
You goal should
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:53:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2017-10-31 14:46, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
Hello!
We need some conditional compilation using 'version'.
Say we have some code to be compiled for X86 and X86_64.
How can we do that using predefined (or other) versions?
Examples:
On 10/31/17 10:47 AM, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:31:17 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:25:19 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:22:37 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:46:40 UTC, Igor
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:54:27 UTC, Dr. Assembly wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:53:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2017-10-31 14:46, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
[...]
The only alternative is to do something like this:
version (X86)
enum x86 = true;
else
enum x86 = false
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 15:20:31 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 14:54:27 UTC, Dr. Assembly wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:53:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2017-10-31 14:46, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
[...]
The only alternative is to do something like
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 15:19:49 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 10/31/17 10:47 AM, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
[...]
Sorry I hate writing code on mobile.
You can create an arbitrary version by assigning a symbol to
it, use that symbol to describe a feature, assign that symbol
for each
On 2017-10-31 16:36, Dr. Assembly wrote:
thanks. I just find it werid, maybe because I came from C/C++
background, where it means only integer types. So enum s = "foo"; is
really werid. But I'll get used to it.
Think of it more like #define in C/C++ than "const". The above defines a
manifest
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:55:56 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 13:53:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2017-10-31 14:46, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
Hello!
We need some conditional compilation using 'version'.
Say we have some code to be compiled for X86 and X86_64.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 20:36:57 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On 2017-10-31 16:36, Dr. Assembly wrote:
> > thanks. I just find it werid, maybe because I came from C/C++
> > background, where it means only integer types. So enum s = "foo"; is
> > really werid. But I'll get u
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 11:21:30 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 11:04:57 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
[...]
??:? pure @safe void
std.exception.bailOut!(Exception).bailOut(immutable(char)[],
ulong, const(char[])) [0xab5c9566]
??:? pure @safe bool std.exception.
20 matches
Mail list logo
