Hi,
I have a strange issue with following coding.
void baz(); // forward declaration
void foo()
{
void bar()
{
baz(); // (1) without f.d. syntax error
}
void baz()
{
bar();
}
baz(); // (2)
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 09:51:30 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
No, it's how D is designed -- inside functions the order of
declarations matters (and forward declarations don't work).
Your version wrongly declares another `baz` at module scope,
and, as there's no definition, you end up with
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 at 15:31:49 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 06:38:20 +, Mike Parker wrote:
AFAIK, your only option is to use a struct constructor. This
is the sort of thing they're used for.
Which brings be back to positional arguments, which means that
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 10:42:46 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
I suggest to make the struct name optional:
... but not forbidden. With templates or "auto" could be useful
to force the type.
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 10:42:46 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
;
Then we can add some syntax sugar to leave out the braces, too:
void bar(int a, T t)
bar(42, a: "bla", b: "xyz");
This effectively gives us strongly typed named arguments,
without making the names part of the function
On 12/04/15 09:12, Andre via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a strange issue with following coding.
>
> void baz(); // forward declaration
>
> void foo()
> {
> void bar()
> {
> baz(); // (1) without f.d. syntax error
> }
>
> void baz()
> {
>
On Friday, December 04, 2015 08:12:05 Andre via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a strange issue with following coding.
>
> void baz(); // forward declaration
>
> void foo()
> {
> void bar()
> {
> baz(); // (1) without f.d. syntax error
> }
>
> void baz()
> {
>
On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 13:24:16 +, ref2401 wrote:
> It seem like `size_t` suites well because 'is large enough to represent
> an offset into all addressible memory.'
> (http://dlang.org/spec/type.html#size_t)
> However sometimes I want index to be less the 0 to represent a
> particular case.
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 11:25:12 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 10:42:46 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
;
Then we can add some syntax sugar to leave out the braces, too:
void bar(int a, T t)
bar(42, a: "bla", b: "xyz");
This effectively gives us strongly typed
On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 15:07:01 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> But I do see a problem, which I'm guessing Walter would point out as
> well. It might/will complicate the overloading rules. What if "a" and
> "b" in T would be integers instead. I think that would be ambiguous.
Right. I would much
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 14:07:01 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-12-04 11:42, Marc Schütz wrote:
I'd support that, too.
I suggest to make the struct name optional:
struct S { int a, b; }
struct T { string a, b; }
void foo(S s);
void foo(T t);
foo({b: 1, a:
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 13:24:16 UTC, ref2401 wrote:
Which type it better to use for array's indices?
float[] arr = new float[10];
int i;
long j;
size_t k;
// which one is better arr[i], a[j]or arr[k] ?
It seem like `size_t` suites well because 'is large enough to
represent an
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 13:24:16 UTC, ref2401 wrote:
Which type it better to use for array's indices?
float[] arr = new float[10];
int i;
long j;
size_t k;
// which one is better arr[i], a[j]or arr[k] ?
It seem like `size_t` suites well because 'is large enough to
represent an
Hi everybody,
this is going to be a learning by doing a benchmark test - post.
Found this "game" on the web
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=binarytrees
and wanted to experiment on my self, I tried to reimplement some
code in D.
This:
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 at 13:36:16 UTC, Christian Köstlin
wrote:
Hi,
I started an experiment with the informations that are
available for compile time reflection.
[...]
I think CyberShadow (aka Vladimir Panteleev) has done something
similar to this
On 2015-12-04 14:24, ref2401 wrote:
For instance `find(float[] arr, float v)` may return -1 if `v` has not
been found.
If "find" is returning an index, it could return arr.length to indicate
it was not found.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2015-12-04 11:42, Marc Schütz wrote:
I'd support that, too.
I suggest to make the struct name optional:
struct S { int a, b; }
struct T { string a, b; }
void foo(S s);
void foo(T t);
foo({b: 1, a: 2}); // foo(S(2, 1));
foo({a: "bla"});// foo(T("bla",
Which type it better to use for array's indices?
float[] arr = new float[10];
int i;
long j;
size_t k;
// which one is better arr[i], a[j]or arr[k] ?
It seem like `size_t` suites well because 'is large enough to
represent an offset into all addressible memory.'
On 04.12.2015 15:06, Alex wrote:
3. The compilation was done by:
dmd -O -release -boundscheck=off [filename.d]
Is there anything else to improve performance significantly?
You forgot -inline.
By the way, I'm not a fan of using -boundscheck=off like a general
optimization flag. It undermines
On 04.12.2015 21:30, Alex wrote:
Yes, I missed this, sorry. The main part of the question was probably
about the class and struct difference. I thought handling with structs
and pointers would be faster then with classes.
When you use a struct directly, without going through a pointer, that
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 19:31:22 UTC, anonymous wrote:
Why did you expect the C++ inspired version to be faster? Just
because the original was written in C++?
From a quick skim the two versions seem to be pretty much
identical, aside from names and struct vs class.
Names don't make a
On Friday, December 04, 2015 13:24:16 ref2401 via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Which type it better to use for array's indices?
>
> float[] arr = new float[10];
> int i;
> long j;
> size_t k;
> // which one is better arr[i], a[j]or arr[k] ?
>
> It seem like `size_t` suites well because 'is large
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 23:23:37 UTC, anonymous wrote:
Why the parallel version is slower then the sequential?
If you set
int n = 14 in the main function
the parallel version is MUCH slower then the sequential. At my
machine
7x slower. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
I don't know
On 04/12/15 21:49, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 at 13:36:16 UTC, Christian Köstlin wrote:
Hi,
I started an experiment with the informations that are available for
compile time reflection.
[...]
I think CyberShadow (aka Vladimir Panteleev) has done something similar
to
Thanks for your answers. I think Cairo is the right way but i
have a hard time to translate any of those C++ or Python
tutorials to D, my current code:
import gtk.Main;
import gtk.MainWindow;
import gtk.DrawingArea;
import gdk.Cairo;
import gtk.Widget;
void main(string[] args){
How do I add third party libraries to the project? I am using
Xamarin. I have built Derelict-SDL2 with dub and got the lib file
but I don't know what to do with it.
In xamarins references folder theres only option to refresh not
to add anything.
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 18:15:47 UTC, Neomex wrote:
How do I add third party libraries to the project? I am using
Xamarin. I have built Derelict-SDL2 with dub and got the lib
file but I don't know what to do with it.
In xamarins references folder theres only option to refresh not
to
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 at 21:04:00 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
...
Unless I'm missing something very important: Isn't that
essentially what the `out` attribute on a function parameter does?
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 14:06:26 UTC, Alex wrote:
Hi everybody,
this is going to be a learning by doing a benchmark test - post.
clip
3. The compilation was done by:
dmd -O -release -boundscheck=off [filename.d]
Is there anything else to improve performance significantly?
If you
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 19:15:57 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
The myproj/dub.json file contains:
{
"name": "myproj",
"description": "A minimal D application.",
"copyright": "Copyright © 2015, ubuntu",
"authors": ["ubuntu"],
"dependencies": {
"derelict-sdl2": "1.9.7"
On 04.12.2015 15:06, Alex wrote:
1. I wrote the C++ inspired version after the C# inspired, hoping it
would be faster. This was not the case. Why?
[...]
Why did you expect the C++ inspired version to be faster? Just because
the original was written in C++?
From a quick skim the two versions
31 matches
Mail list logo
