Re: Effective String to Date conversion?
On Monday, 22 January 2024 at 10:56:04 UTC, atzensepp wrote: Dear D-gurus, being new to D I am trying my first steps and the language is quite intuitive and appealing. When reading a file and creating a hash for the reocrds I want to get only the most recent ones. For this I need to convert Date/Time-Strings to comparable DateTime-Objects. The code below works but looks a bit clumsy. Is there a more efficient (shorter) way to accomplish this? [...] If your date conforms to an ISO or extended ISO format, you can use DateTime.fromISOString [0] or DateTime.fromISOExtString [1] functions. [0] https://dlang.org/phobos/std_datetime_date.html#.Date.fromISOString [1] https://dlang.org/phobos/std_datetime_date.html#.Date.fromISOExtString
Re: length's type.
On Sunday, 28 January 2024 at 16:16:34 UTC, Olivier Pisano wrote:
If .length were to be an int, D could not handle array of more
than 2G bytes. The whole language would be useless on 64 bit
systems.
The array.length better to be *signed* `long` (signed size_t)
instead of unsigned.
Can you guess what is the output of this array element average
calculation example:
==
import std.algorithm;
import std.stdio;
void main() {
long[] a = [-5000, 0];
long c = sum(a) / a.length;
writeln(c);
}
==
See the result here:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/cagloplexjfzubncx...@forum.dlang.org
Re: length's type.
On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 02:55:37 UTC, zjh wrote: Can you change the type of 'length' from 'ulong' to 'int', so I haven't to convert it every time! The devs are obviously very very wrong here I underflow indexs all the time But this is a pretty dead fight, I'd aim for a smart index type thats a "checkedint" with underflow protection and can alias to int; cause maybe that could someday happen.
Re: length's type.
On Sunday, 28 January 2024 at 16:16:34 UTC, Olivier Pisano wrote: On Sunday, 28 January 2024 at 08:55:54 UTC, zjh wrote: On Sunday, 28 January 2024 at 06:34:13 UTC, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: The explicit conversion `.length.to!int` has an extra benefit I rarely use numbers over one million. But do I have to consider numbers over `4 billion` every day? If .length were to be an int, D could not handle array of more than 2G bytes. The whole language would be useless on 64 bit systems. _Of bytes_ and if your messing with the type and still think that's an important concern you could make it a long for 63 bits and no silly 0-1 behavior a signed index of a datatype that is 2 words will still compete with the mythical computer ram of a max ram 64 bit machine; if you have 64^2 ubytes maybe you should rotate your prospective and store 256 counts of each.
Re: length's type.
On Sunday, 28 January 2024 at 08:55:54 UTC, zjh wrote: On Sunday, 28 January 2024 at 06:34:13 UTC, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: The explicit conversion `.length.to!int` has an extra benefit I rarely use numbers over one million. But do I have to consider numbers over `4 billion` every day? If .length were to be an int, D could not handle array of more than 2G bytes. The whole language would be useless on 64 bit systems.
Re: length's type.
On Sunday, 28 January 2024 at 06:34:13 UTC, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: The explicit conversion `.length.to!int` has an extra benefit I rarely use numbers over one million. But do I have to consider numbers over `4 billion` every day?
