On Monday, 8 May 2017 at 10:34:42 UTC, k-five wrote:
On Monday, 8 May 2017 at 10:22:53 UTC, JV wrote:
On Monday, 8 May 2017 at 09:26:48 UTC, k-five wrote:
On Monday, 8 May 2017 at 08:54:50 UTC, JV wrote:
---
If I continue to learn D I will do b
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 19:22:09 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
It's just out of date. Can't remember the version, but this did
use to allocate. It doesn't any more. But only for this case.
In most cases it does allocate.
Okay cool, that's good to hear. For reference the most recent
pla
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 18:32:16 UTC, Lewis wrote:
import std.random;
import std.stdio;
int[4] testfunc(int num) @nogc
{
return [0, 1, num, 3];
}
int main()
{
int[4] arr = testfunc(uniform(0, 15));
writeln(arr);
return 0;
}
I've read a bunch of stuff that seems to indicate
So in this document:
http://yshui.gitlab.io/sdpc/sdpc/parsers/whitespace.html
Part of the type name is still mangled. I found ddox use
core.demangle.demangleType internally. So I guess code.demangle
is following behind dmd?
Is there a better way to demangle a name?
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 18:32:16 UTC, Lewis wrote:
import std.random;
import std.stdio;
int[4] testfunc(int num) @nogc
{
return [0, 1, num, 3];
}
int main()
{
int[4] arr = testfunc(uniform(0, 15));
writeln(arr);
return 0;
}
I've read a bunch of stuff that seems to indicate
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 18:32:16 UTC, Lewis wrote:
import std.random;
import std.stdio;
int[4] testfunc(int num) @nogc
{
return [0, 1, num, 3];
}
int main()
{
int[4] arr = testfunc(uniform(0, 15));
writeln(arr);
return 0;
}
I've read a bunch of stuff that seems to indicate
import std.random;
import std.stdio;
int[4] testfunc(int num) @nogc
{
return [0, 1, num, 3];
}
int main()
{
int[4] arr = testfunc(uniform(0, 15));
writeln(arr);
return 0;
}
I've read a bunch of stuff that seems to indicate that array
literals are always heap-allocated, even whe
On 5/12/17 5:46 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 05:23:23PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
Note, you can achieve what you want with version(unittest):
version(unittest)
{
class A { B b; }
class B { }
}
unittest
{
On Wednesday, 10 May 2017 at 01:42:47 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
Attempting to update a git repo to current D, I encounter the
following deprecation messages:
src/glwtf/signals.d-mixin-256(256,2): Deprecation:
glwtf.input.BaseGLFWEventHandler._on_key_down is not visible
from module glwtf.sign
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 05:03 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
>
[…]
> SysTime st;
> try
> {
> // If it's -MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.FFFZ
> // If it's -MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.FFZ
> // If it's -MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.FZ
> // If it's -MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.Z
>
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 05:30 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
>
> […]
I can see I am not going to win the -MM discussion so I'll stand
down. Until I have read the latest version of the standard – I remain
sure this is a reduced accuracy not a truncated representation. Bu
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:56:31 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 04:24 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
>
> learn wrote:
> > […]
> >
> > -MM is still truncated and therefore only permitted if
> > applications
> > agree to it.
>
> But didn't that
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 09:51:40 UTC, k-five wrote:
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 09:05:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
But obviously, to know what's actually happening with your
code, you're going to have to profile and benchmark it -
Can you please give a link or page or something to read about
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:31:38 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> And this seems awkward:
>
>
> auto date = Clock.currTime();
> auto date_buffer = date.toISOString();
> …
> try {
> date = SysTime.fromISOString(date_buffer);
> } catch (DateTimeException dte) {
>
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 04:24 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> […]
>
> -MM is still truncated and therefore only permitted if
> applications
> agree to it.
But didn't that come is as standard in the 2000 standard along with --
MM-DD for yearless date?
> > For times hh:
And this seems awkward:
auto date = Clock.currTime();
auto date_buffer = date.toISOString();
…
try {
date = SysTime.fromISOString(date_buffer);
} catch (DateTimeException dte) {
try {
date =
SysTime(DateTime.f
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:06:57 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 01:52 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
> learn wrote:
> My reading is that -MM is an allowed form: I was wrong to suggest
> was allowed.
-MM is still truncated and theref
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 02:23 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
>
[…]
> At best, it's slang. It's not proper anything.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5388
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
Indeed. Thanks for getting a pull request in to ameliorate the
difficulty.
--
Russel.
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 01:52 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> […]
> The ISO representation of a date is MMDD, and the extended ISO
> representation is -MM-DD. would be a truncated
> representation. The
> standard has language such as "If, by agreement, truncated
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 10:51:09 UTC, k-five wrote:
Okay, and NOW I understood what you are trying to say.
First of all I thought you got mad at me. And I became sad.
My sincere apologies! Always assume the best in people :-) I am
glad you asked for clarification.
[...] Still I am a beg
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 10:15:34 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 08:23:55 UTC, k-five wrote:
[...]
OK understood.
[...]
I am sorry for expressing myself poorly. What I meant to say is
that it looked like you can write an interesting article about
your experienc
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 08:23:55 UTC, k-five wrote:
On Friday, 12 May 2017 at 20:53:56 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
Is it safe to say that these 40 lines of D do the same as your
324 lines of C++ [1]?
No. I cannot say that.
Since this is not a full port of renrem in C++ to D. It was
just a
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 09:05:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
For the most part, when parsing a string, std.conv.to's
approach of just parsing the string and throwing an exception
if/when it fails is the most efficient, because it's only going
to parse the string once, whereas calling a fu
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 08:50:20 UTC, k-five wrote:
Way arguing when a simple code can clarify the subject? right?
If am not clear so consider me as an stupid man, no problem at
all.
but CAN you please solve it for me?
import std.stdio: writeln;
import std.conv:to;
void ma
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 06:53:25 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Is there a canonical, idiomatic way of processing std.datetime objects
> using std.getopt?
>
> Currently, I am suffering:
>
> /usr/include/d/std/getopt.d(921): Error: static assert "Dunno how to deal
> with type Sys
On Friday, May 12, 2017 14:46:30 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 05:23:23PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via
> Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...]
>
> > Note, you can achieve what you want with version(unittest):
> >
> > version(unittest)
> > {
> >
> >class A { B
On Friday, May 12, 2017 10:42:18 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:47:04PM +0200, ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> > On 05/12/2017 10:32 AM, k-five wrote:
> > > Interesting! I was worried about performance and for that I did not
> > > want to use try-c
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 02:40:17 UTC, Mike B Johnson wrote:
You are not making a lot of sense:
1. Exception do bubble up, so you don't need to "handle"
exceptions at the call site if you don't want to. The whole
point of exceptions is do effectively do what you want.
2. You say that you
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 07:33:35 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> A priori I thought 2015 was a perfectly valid ISO8601 date-time
> specification. It appears that SysTime.fromISOString disagrees:
>
> core.time.TimeException@/usr/include/d/std/datetime.d(8553): Invalid
> ISO String:
On Friday, 12 May 2017 at 20:53:56 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
Is it safe to say that these 40 lines of D do the same as your
324 lines of C++ [1]?
No. I cannot say that.
Since this is not a full port of renrem in C++ to D. It was just
an example in D, nothing else.
This, and your comments o
30 matches
Mail list logo
