In PHP frameworks often use $option arrays which are some kind of key
value pairs. they are merged with the default valuzes inside the function.
pro:
- you can pass an argument by name
- you only need to pass those who needed.
cons:
- hash arrays
it should be possible to create a similar
On 20. 12. 2011 16:20, Timon Gehr wrote:
struct Item1(T){}
struct Item2(T){}
mixin template getItems(Items ...){
static if(Items.length) {
private alias Items[0] _item;
mixin _item!int;
mixin getItems!(Items[1..$]);
}
}
struct Group(Items...)
{
mixin getItems!Items;
}
void main(){
alias
Timon Gehr , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:31142), a écrit :
On 12/20/2011 03:18 PM, clk wrote:
Thank you for your quick replies. I'm impressed by the helpfulness and
dedication of the D community!
Here's another one. Is there a way to pass arguments to functions by
keyword as in the
Hello.
I want to add the option to iterate objects of my class using
foreach. I need them to be iterable as view-only const and as
mutable too. I would prefer to iterate using the return a
delegate but if that's not possible, ranges are fine too. Also,
I'd prefer a template-less solution
Can't really answer your original question, but
1. Why don't you use opApply?
2. Why do you use ref int even in the const version?
3. You could also use alias this to allow iteration, don't know if that's
what you want in general though.
On 12/21/2011 04:54 PM, pompei2 wrote:
Hello.
I want to add the option to iterate objects of my class using foreach. I
need them to be iterable as view-only const and as mutable too. I would
prefer to iterate using the return a delegate but if that's not
possible, ranges are fine too. Also, I'd
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 16:31:01 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 16:07:55 UTC, Timon Gehr
wrote:
Just remove the non-const overload. const member functions
work with mutable, immutable and const receivers.
The const version does not allow using 'ref' when
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 16:05:24 UTC, Trass3r wrote:
Can't really answer your original question, but
1. Why don't you use opApply?
2. Why do you use ref int even in the const version?
3. You could also use alias this to allow iteration, don't know
if that's what you want in general
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 16:07:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Just remove the non-const overload. const member functions work
with mutable, immutable and const receivers.
The const version does not allow using 'ref' when iterating.
pompei2 , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:31164), a écrit :
This is what I have, which works but has severe code duplication.
I hoped inout would help me here, but I just can't figure it out.
I also gave a try to ranges, but same thing again: I can only get
it to work if I define my
This works fine at runtime, but explodes in CTFE:
---
bool isInstanceOf(T, O)(O o) {
return (cast(T) o) !is null;
}
---
CTFE doesn't like !is null (cannot compare [...] at compile time).
Moreover, in CTFE a failed cast terminates the interpretation (cannot
reinterpret class from [...]
From what I understand D classes are reference types, which
would imply to me that they are either always garbage collected
or rather less likely, reference counting.
Which is fine and all, but since structs don't support virtual
functions, doesn't this pretty much force you to use classes
On Thursday, 22 December 2011 at 02:29:10 UTC, Froglegs wrote:
From what I understand D classes are reference types, which
would imply to me that they are either always garbage collected
or rather less likely, reference counting.
They are garbage-collected.
Which is fine and all, but since
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 20:15:36 UTC, Elvis Maehren
wrote:
Is this somehow catchable?
I believe that's what __traits(compiles, ...) is for:
http://dlang.org/traits.html#compiles
You can allocate classes anywhere, if you're OK with forfeiting
safety guarantees. For example, see emplace in std.conv:
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_conv.html#emplace
Ah thanks
Value type polymorphism has shown to be problematic. One
notable problem is object slicing:
You can allocate classes anywhere, if you're OK with
forfeiting safety guarantees. For example, see emplace in
std.conv:
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_conv.html#emplace
Hum calling emplace ending up calling this bit of code..
T* emplace(T)(T* chunk)
if (is(T == class))
{
*chunk =
Which returned me a nice fat null pointer.. wth? Perhaps that
should be a compile time error if you aren't supposed to use
classes..
Strange... I'm not sure what the deal is with that overload. I
meant the last one on the page (that takes a void[]).
Hum I've tried the array version but I
T emplace(T, Args...)(void[] chunk, Args args) if (is(T ==
class))
{
enforce(chunk.length = __traits(classInstanceSize, T),
new ConvException(emplace: chunk size too small));
...
This fails whenever the size is greater or equal to the amount
of memory required :(
Hum nevermind
On Thursday, 22 December 2011 at 06:43:33 UTC, Froglegs wrote:
T emplace(T, Args...)(void[] chunk, Args args) if (is(T ==
class))
{
enforce(chunk.length = __traits(classInstanceSize, T),
new ConvException(emplace: chunk size too small));
...
This fails whenever the size is greater or
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Froglegs lug...@gmail.com wrote:
Which returned me a nice fat null pointer.. wth? Perhaps that should be a
compile time error if you aren't supposed to use classes..
Strange... I'm not sure what the deal is with that overload. I meant the
last one on the
On 2011-12-21 21:15, Elvis Maehren wrote:
This works fine at runtime, but explodes in CTFE:
---
bool isInstanceOf(T, O)(O o) {
return (cast(T) o) !is null;
}
---
CTFE doesn't like !is null (cannot compare [...] at compile time).
Moreover, in CTFE a failed cast terminates the
Hi,
the following code is reduced from a parser generated with Ragel
(http://www.complang.org/ragel/). That's also the reason why it's
using pointers instead of array access, but Ragel guarantees that there
won't be any out-of-bound reads.
AFAIK pointers are supported in CTFE now as long as
22 matches
Mail list logo
