On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:45:10 +, matovitch wrote:
you can also use unions.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:00:05 +, matovitch wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 14:50:24 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:45:10 +, matovitch wrote:
>>
>> you can also use unions.
>
> Good idea ! In my case I think it was better to cast, but this could be
> helpful another time
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:33:02 +, Namespace wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 16:29:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:00:05 +, matovitch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 14:50:24 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:45:10 +, matovitch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 22:53:35 -0400, Paul O'Neil wrote:
> I'm registering a callback with some C code. The simplified story is
> here, but the actual code is on GitHub [1] at the end if you care.
>
> The call looks something like this.
>
> void register(void(*fp)(void*), void* context);
>
> I h
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 20:29:49 +, bitwise wrote:
> The verbosity and blatant disregard for DRY makes me CRY.
> See what I did there.. ;)
you can always `alias` it to something funny or obscene.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
it's still working. moreover, it is used in Phobos! and yet it's not
documented anywhere. what i want to know is whether they will be removed
for good, or brought back and properly documented? the current situation
is awful: compiler has special treatment for some aggregate members, but
nothing
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:25:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 3/30/15 1:42 AM, ketmar wrote:
>> it's still working. moreover, it is used in Phobos! and yet it's not
>> documented anywhere. what i want to know is whether they will be
>> removed for good, or brought back and properly document
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:40:52 +, weaselcat wrote:
> was this ever solved?
nope. there were some suggestions, but no decision was made.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:36:49 +, matovitch wrote:
>> The index is the problem. Generally, foreach doesn't do automatic
>> indices for ranges. You can use std.range.enumerate or count yourself
>> explicitly.
>>
>> foreach(i, t; myRange.enumerate) {...}
>>
>> size_t i = 0;
>> foreach(t; myRange)
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:25:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
here is ER with patches:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14382
sorry for breaking my promise of not making ERs anymore. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:34:11 +, weaselcat wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 03:12:42 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:40:52 +, weaselcat wrote:
>>
>>> was this ever solved?
>>
>> nope. there were some suggestions, but no decision was made.
>
> sigh do you know if there's a
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:57:49 +, w0rp wrote:
> You might want to try GDC or LDC. I am not certain if they implement
> tail call optimisations, but they might do, and it seems like a good
> optimisation to have. I'm sure this has been discussed before.
gdc does, as this is gcc backend optimisat
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:25:46 +, John Colvin wrote:
> Short answer: no. .codeof for functions is something I've wanted for
> ages, but no movement so far.
'cause `.codeof` is a can of worms. it is just a bad replace for AST
macros, and having it means that internal string representation shoul
On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 19:16:33 +, Jonathan wrote:
> What's the best way to do this? I'm assuming this should be best
> practice:
> http://dlang.org/traits.html#isSame
>
> struct S { }
> writeln(__traits(isSame, S, S));
struct S {}
auto s0 = S();
auto s1 = S();
static if (is(typeof(s0) == ty
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:49:18 +, Baz wrote:
> Is there anything in the grammar that prevents this syntax ?
yes: nameless args. i would like to see 'em burned with napalm, but it
seems to be too late to do that...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 14:18:21 +, JR wrote:
> But the compiler has all the pieces of information needed to see it's
> wrong, doesn't it?
no, it doesn't. compiler doesn't know about `std.format.format` and it's
special abilities. while it is possible to add such checks to the
compiler, it will
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 14:31:40 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> It's not hard to write a CTFE version of writef/writeln/etc., that takes
> the format argument at compile-time, since std.format itself is already
> CTFE-able.
i didn't know that (didn't checked, actually), so i rewro
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:20:38 -0400, bitwise wrote:
i believe that you can't do what you want in a way you want, 'cause UFCS
is not working for template args. but you can do this:
alias base(alias CC) = reflect!(CC.baseName());
...
static const(Refl) baseRefl = base!refl;
signature.asc
Descripti
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:53:05 +, Andrea Fontana wrote:
> My 2 cents. If I remember correctly, "@" prefix in @safe, @trusted,
> @system, etc was added just to avoid keywords pollution, right?
>
> Now UDA uses the same prefix: if some new keywords/properties/attributes
> will be added to D, the
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:48:05 +, rumbu wrote:
> On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 14:39:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> coffimplib is a paid utility out of the $15 extended utility package
>>
>> http://digitalmars.com/eup.html
>>
>> buy from here (be sure javascript is enabled or the form won't even
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:05:42 +, rumbu wrote:
> On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 19:50:13 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:48:05 +, rumbu wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 14:39:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
coffimplib is a paid utility out of the $15 extended utility pac
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:50:56 +, Chris wrote:
> Doh! You're right! My bad. However, this makes the function less
> generic, but it doesn't matter here.
maybe `auto ref` can help here?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 23:38:47 +, Freddy wrote:
> C libraries have a pattern of
> HiddenType* getObj();
> void freeObj(HiddenType*);
>
> Is there any way I can make the GC search for a "HiddenType*" and run
> "freeObj" when the pointer is not found.
wrap it in class/struct and run `fr
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:14:25 +, Chris wrote:
> string a = "bla";
> string b = "blub";
>
> auto res = doSomething(a, b);
>
> If I didn't use "auto ref" or "ref", string would get copied, wouldn't
> it?
no, it wont -- not unless you'll append something to it. slicing arrays
(and string is ar
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:31:03 +, Nordlöw wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 April 2015 at 18:12:35 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>> Is there a way to CT-query the arity of all opIndex and opSlice
>> overloads?
>
> Ping.
as long as they aren't templates, you can use any function traits on 'em.
like `ParameterT
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:02:15 +, Mark Isaacson wrote:
> I'd like to be able to know if my destructor is being called because an
> exception was thrown. Any way to do that?
sorry, you can't.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:25:13 +, Cassio Butrico wrote:
> Hello everyone , first congratulations for the wonderful forum , I wish
> someone could help me , I am writing a small basic interpreter in D and
> I am with some difficulties.
>
> estoutentando manupular the setjmp / longjmp buffers , b
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 21:45:41 +0100, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> On 26/04/2015 06:56, ketmar wrote:
>
>> you shouldn't use setjmp/longjmp in D. use exceptions instead.
>> something like this:
>
>
> True in the general case. Still, there must be some reason that trying
> it in D causes an AV (even i
subj. the code:
void main () {
import std.stdio;
char ch = '!';
switch (ch) {
int n = 42;
case '!': writeln(n, ": wow!"); break;
default:
}
}
i think that such abomination should:
1. be forbidden, or
2. trigger a warning, or
3. execute initializer anyway.
c
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:57:07 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Switch statements in D allow all sorts of abominations, if only you
> would try it. I think it was originally designed to support a particular
> loop idiom (sorry I forgot what it was called, and don't have time to
> l
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:48:36 +, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> Please raise an issue in bugzilla. This is obviously an error.
done: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14532
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 03 May 2015 17:21:58 +, filcuc wrote:
> Hi all,
> i'm working in the generation of the code but i'm failing in extracting
> a function return type when invoking the ReturnType!(T) type trait and
> mixing it with __traits(getMember) function.
> Can anyone help me? or explaining what is
On Mon, 04 May 2015 02:29:19 +, rsw0x wrote:
> This says "Goodbye!" exactly once, indicating(?) that S was NRVO'd which
> means the scope of s went from foo to main. However, is this a guarantee
> by the standard? Is an implementation allowed to define foo such that it
> returns by copy and ca
On Sun, 03 May 2015 18:07:20 -0700, Dan Olson wrote:
> It seems a private class or struct defaults to public members. Just
> curious if this is intended. I would have expected private all the way
> down unless overriden.
i bet it is intended. protection of struct/class members is independed of
On Sun, 03 May 2015 18:02:37 +, filcuc wrote:
> Yep sorry,
> i'm still learning :)
i'm not blaming you at all. what i mean i that i'm bad at explanations,
so you'd better read one of the D books to better understand my cryptic
"don't do that, do this" comments. ;-)
signature.asc
Descriptio
On Mon, 04 May 2015 18:21:59 +0200, Robert M. Münch wrote:
> I find this a bit strange:
>
> // get all rules that start with p...
> enum BolRules = StaticFilter!(beginsWithP,
> __traits(allMembers,BolSource));
> static assert(is(BolRules == enum));
>
> Compiling using dmd...
> source/app.d(114)
On Mon, 04 May 2015 20:07:27 +0200, Robert M. Münch wrote:
>
> Gives this:
>
> (string, string, string)
> playground.d(9): Error: no type for typeid(members1)
> playground.d(9):while evaluating pragma(msg, typeid(members1))
`typeid` is runtime thing, you can't use it in compile-time.
On Wed, 06 May 2015 14:26:43 +, rumbu wrote:
> operator overloads: opCom, opAdd, opSub ...
phobos' std.xml, std.variand and std.bitmanip are D1! ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 17 May 2015 10:09:10 +, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 May 2015 at 09:25:33 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> Is this error an ICE? I think so, because I see the internal filename,
>> but I'm not sure.
>>
>> Error: e2ir: cannot cast malloc(length * 8u) of type void* to type
>> char[]
>
>
On Mon, 18 May 2015 14:30:42 +, Chris wrote:
> The following
>
> string[string] myarray = ["key":"value"];
> string entry;
> entry = myarray["key"]; // => vgc: indexing an associative array may
> cause GC allocation
>
> Why is _accessing_ an assoc treated as indexing it?
it can throw "out o
On Mon, 18 May 2015 14:41:19 +, Chris wrote:
> On Monday, 18 May 2015 at 14:34:38 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 May 2015 14:30:42 +, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> The following
>>>
>>> string[string] myarray = ["key":"value"];
>>> string entry;
>>> entry = myarray["key"]; // => vgc: indexing an
On Mon, 18 May 2015 23:55:38 +, Freddy wrote:
> How do you allocate an associative array on the heap?
>
> void main(){
> alias A=int[string];
> auto b=new A;
> }
>
> $ rdmd test test.d(4): Error: new can only create structs, dynamic
> arrays or class objects, not int[stri
On Tue, 19 May 2015 11:36:32 +, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 May 2015 at 11:08:52 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
>> On Monday, 18 May 2015 at 14:30:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Why is _accessing_ an assoc treated as indexing it?
>>
>> Are you sure you understand "indexing" as we do? It's not like index
On Tue, 19 May 2015 13:17:15 +, anonymous wrote:
> On Monday, 18 May 2015 at 14:34:38 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> it can throw "out of range" error, which is `new`ed.
>
> Array access can also throw RangeError, but -vgc and @nogc don't mind
> that:
>
> void main() @nogc {
> int[] a;
>
On Thu, 21 May 2015 11:36:14 +, Saurabh Das wrote:
> PS: The original expression:
> http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/raw/e7a66aa067ab
>
> double someFunction(double AvgPriceChangeNormalized, double DayFactor,
> double TicksTenMinutesNormalized)
> {
> return
> AvgPriceChangeNormalized)*(0.0868))
On Sun, 24 May 2015 23:32:50 +, ZombineDev wrote:
> I know I can call a base implementation of a method like in 3), but I
> need to do it generically like in 2). Does anybody now how I can achieve
> this?
i don't know why you want that, but something like this may do:
auto callBaseMethod(str
On Mon, 25 May 2015 09:24:56 +, ZombineDev wrote:
> On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 07:57:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> i don't know why you want that, but something like this may do:
>>
>> auto callBaseMethod(string MTN, C, Args...) (inout C self, Args args) {
>> alias FSC = BaseClassesTuple!(C)[0];
>
On Mon, 25 May 2015 09:24:56 +, ZombineDev wrote:
> alias can't refer to a nested member:
> -
> struct Point2 {
> float x;
> float y;
> }
>
> struct Line2 {
> Point2 start;
> Point2 end;
>
> mixin Access;
>
> // alias x1 = this.start.x; <- this does
On Wed, 27 May 2015 14:09:47 +, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> Two options:
>
> 1) add an overload that takes typeof(null)
>
> this(typeof(null)) { /* handles the null literal specially */ }
you keep breaking my "box of thinking". ;-) never thought about such
declaration.
signature.asc
Descriptio
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:35:54 +, wobbles wrote:
quick looking thru your code raises two questions:
1. didn't you forgot to add `.stringof` in `constructCases`?
2. didn't you forgot `!` in `constructCases(Aliases[2..$])`?
i.e. `constructCases~(Aliases[2..$])`
it may work with that.
signatu
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:49:18 +, ketmar wrote:
>i.e. `constructCases~(Aliases[2..$])`
`constructCases!(Aliases[2..$])`, of course ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:43:56 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I don't think a general function such as to with radix is good for this.
> You can probably do better with a custom function, I'm not sure if
> there's any base-64 libraries out there.
std.base64? ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PG
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:37:52 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> I don't want to have to put try catch blocks every
> time I call the caller.
write mixin template for that. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 01:07:10 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 June 2015 at 01:01:08 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:37:52 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>
>>> I don't want to have to put try catch blocks every time I call the
>>> caller.
>>
>> write mixin template for that. ;-)
>
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:59:56 +, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
> That's what I found so confusing about the opengl docs. Just guessing
> here but char* is a pointer to the first char in the string, then what
> exactly is char**? Is it pointing to the first char of the first string
> in an array?
it's a
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 13:38:18 +, Atila Neves wrote:
> For regular runtime parameters, there's ParameterTypeTuple. How would I
> write an equivalent template for template parameters? i.e.
>
> void fun(Foo foo, Bar bar)() {}
>
> alias types = CtParameterTypeTuple!fun; //TypeTuple!(Foo
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 05:32:46 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> Whats the idiomatic way to check if an identifier has a specific UDA
> attached to it.
>
> Also what should I use to define a UDA that doesn't need to carry any
> data? Just an empty template? Or does something else make more sense?
there i
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 11:37:29 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 06:20:55 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 05:32:46 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>
>>> Whats the idiomatic way to check if an identifier has a specific UDA
>>> attached to it.
>>>
>>> Also what should I use t
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:32:56 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> is, but personally, I think that named arguments are a terrible idea in
> general, so I'm not about to try and support a position that tries to
> bring them into D.
it's a perfect thing. i always hate that "Flag
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:58:10 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Personally, I hate how named arguments affect the API (e.g. the names of
> the parameters suddenly become part of the API), and for the most part,
> the only times that they're worth much is when you have so many
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:50:15 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 05:39:06 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
>> I'd be very interested in reading more about those reasons beyond FUD.
>> The arguments in favor have been repeated many times over, and the only
>> argument against that I've
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:57:03 +0100, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> On 27/04/2015 10:41, ketmar wrote:
>
>> i believe this has something to do with exception frames. but it needs
>> further investigation.
>
> What is an exception frame, exactly?
to correctly do unwinding and other interesting things ex
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:36:39 +, John Colvin wrote:
> *for some reason it's not public, but it's very short and simple:
it's funny how many useful things are there in Phobos, carefully hidden
from user. i believe each D book should include an advice like this: "to
fully learn what you can do
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:41:59 -0400, bitwise wrote:
> Is there a way to compile for multiple conditions?
>
> Tried all these:
>
> version(One | Two){ }
> version(One || Two){ }
> version(One && Two){ }
> version(One) | version(Two){ }
> version(One) || version(Two){ }
> version(One) && version(T
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 12:01:29 -0400, bitwise wrote:
>> nope. Walter is against that, so we'll not have it, despite the
>> triviality of the patch.
>
> Any idea what the rationale was for not allowing it?
i don't remember. that murmuring about "it makes the code harder to read"
goes beyond me, so
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:49:49 +, anonymous wrote:
> Taking it one step further:
>
> template Version(string name)
> {
> mixin("
> version("~name~") enum Version = true;
> else enum Version = false;
> ");
> }
>
> static if(Version!"One" || Version!"Two")
> {
>
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:11:17 +, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 01:20:39 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
>> I understand this is legal for declaration wo definition (void
>> fun(int);)
>> but why allow this:
>> void test(int){} ?
>
> Actually it is void test(int _param_0) { }
> You
oh, seems that i managed to make everything even less understandable...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 23:55:53 +, JDemler wrote:
> After a bit of rethinking:
>
> I guess the compiler goes through 2 loops:
> the first resolves __traits, the second does ctfe.
>
> That would explain this behavior. "a" is not present to the compiler
> while it tries to resolve my __traits cal
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 06:12:29 +, Ozan wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> Is it possible to create arrays which has more then one type,
> f. ex. array[0] = 1; array[1] = "z"; array[2] = new clazz(),
>
> I tried "Variant", but it slow down heavily my app.
it is possible. with Variant. ;-)
chances are t
p.s. faster weak typing solution is definitely possible if you'll narrow
possible type set. but as i said, i'd not recommend to go this way. there
can be dragon in the end.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 09:46:54 +, JDemler wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 05:52:00 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> oh, seems that i managed to make everything even less understandable...
>
> Your code works perfectly and makes at least some sense to me.
> Thank you.
>
> If i understand it correctly:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:29:08 +, anonymous wrote:
> One important thing I didn't see stated clearly by anyone in here:
>
> CTFE may run at compile time but it follows the same rules as run time
> evaluation (plus some restrictions).
>
> This means, you can't use dynamic values (e.g. function
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:26:52 +, rcorre wrote:
> Suppose I have a function defined like so:
>
> void foo(int i) { }
>
> intended to be called like:
>
> 5.foo
>
> Should it be labeled with @property?
> Or is @property only for true member functions?
only if you plan to use it like `foo = 5;
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 18:21:39 +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> only if you plan to use it like `foo = 5;`.
>
> You can use it like that anyway.
sure, but i'm talking about style, not about compiler demands.
>> i.e. exactly like field variable.
>
> struct S{
> void delegate() dg;
> }
>
> int m
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:10:20 +, jmh530 wrote:
you shouldn't cast it like that. use `std.array.array` to get the actual
array. like this:
import std.array;
auto y = x.map!(a => exp(a)).array;
the thing is that `map` returns so-called "lazy range". lazy ranges
trying to not do any work
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:07:55 +, jmh530 wrote:
> I have a little bit of a follow up.
>
> After making the recommended changes, the function seems to work with
> both static and dynamic arrays. I then noticed that all of the examples
> for functions that pass arrays in http://dlang.org/function
i have that.
with GCD. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:49:56 +0900, Mike Parker wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 6:17 AM, tcak wrote:
>> As far as I known, when I define a string with enum and it is used at
>> different parts of code, that string is repeated again and again in
>> executable file instead of passing a pointer to string. So,
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:02:46 +, WhatMeWorry wrote:
> I guess the question would be why would one want a struct on the heap
> and a class on the stack? Performance reasons?
struct on the heap: some containers, for example, doing their own memory
management.
class on the stack: guaranteed de
is it safe to call `GC.removeRange` in dtor? i believe it should be safe,
so one can perform various cleanups, but documentation says nothing about
guarantees.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:28:40 +, BBaz wrote:
> I try to build a symbol table:
>
> ---
> module aveb;
>
> import std.stdio;
> import std.algorithm.searching;
> import std.ascii;
>
> void* [string] sig;
>
> void ana(alias mod)()
> {
> import std.traits; foreach(memb;__traits(allMembers,m
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:00:51 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> Are static constructors guaranteed to run if the module is imported?
> Also are static constructors in templated types guaranteed to run for
> every instantiation? Even if the instantiation is never actually used
> outside of compile time cod
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:19:54 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:07:57 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
>>>
>>> Hmm... any reason why?
>>
>> if instantiated
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> 2. no.
>
> Hmm... any reason why?
p.s. note that static ctors are *intended* to run in runtime, not in
compile time. if compiler decides that some code is not required in
runtim
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 03:10:44 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:31:18 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> yes. it doesn't do that now, afair, but i can't see any sense in
>> running code that obviously does nothing, as it's owner is not used.
>> module ctors was designed for such things --
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> 2. no.
>
> Hmm... any reason why?
if instantiated template was not used in any code that makes into
compiled binary, compiler is free to remove it with all it's ctors. it
may do
p.s. also note that module can has several static ctors, i.e. this works
fine:
=== z00.d ===
module z00;
import std.stdio;
static this () { writeln("ctor0"); }
static this () { writeln("ctor1"); }
=== z01.d ===
module z01;
import z00;
void main () {}
this prints:
ctor0
ctor1
so you c
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:19:33 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:07:57 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
>>>
>>> Hmm... any reason why?
>>
>> if instantiat
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 22:05:47 UTC, qznc wrote:
Something like this:
enum X { A, B, C };
enum Y { foo, bar, baz };
alias both = TwoEnums!(X,Y);
static assert(both.sizeof == 1);
both z;
z.X = B;
z.Y = bar;
that's so easy that it's not even funny...
enum X { A, B, C };
enum Y { foo, bar,
thank you both. then i think that it should be explicitly stated
in core.memory.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:22:17 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 11:36:42 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> it doesn't, afair, but it's quite natural. if user type was throwed out
>> as unused, it would be very strange to insist on keeping it's
>> initialization code.
>
> Yes, but I would
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:09:52 +, aki wrote:
> Following code causes run-time error.
> How can I use static this() without causing error?
you currently can't, sorry.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:42:31 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
> The behaviour you expect makes more sense, for sure, but I was trying to
> guess what the current implementation might be doing without actually
> having to try it :-)
ah, sorry. i was talking about "the ideal case with ideal compiler", no
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 06:53:34 +, Szabo Bogdan wrote:
> For both of these issues I was told that swift is not Java and if the
> situations that I described happens, you don't want to crash the user
> app, because this will make the user unhappy.
i completely agree. it's way better to keep going
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 19:01:59 +1200, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> Failing gracefully. Not something most developers do.
usually that is not related. i mean that if program entered invalid
state, it may be too late to save user data. it may be even undesirable
to do so, as the data may be already co
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 21:39:23 +1200, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> Of course of course.
> Valid options in failing gracefully include resetting the data and
> informing the user. Also giving them an option to send a bug report to
> the devs.
> Point being, having it just fail on start each time is not
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:42:08 +, Per Nordlöw wrote:
> How stable has the FFMPEG API since beginning 2015?
don't know, but various players stop bundling ffmpeg long time ago. i
assume that API is stable enough to stop worrying about it.
warning. information deduced, but not checked.
signatu
p.s. "stop bundling" means "stop bundling their own private versions in
source tree, and started to use system version" here.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 12:36:09 +, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> I'm not aware of much docs regarding these sort of tricks. But I believe
> it was Adam who originally discovered this little trick.
> Atleast I'm pretty sure he is how I learnt about it. On D.learn as well.
i bet this trick was planned
801 - 900 of 1105 matches
Mail list logo
