Re: char[] == null

On Thursday, 19 November 2015 at 15:36:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 11/19/15 3:30 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 22:15:19 anonymous via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On 18.11.2015 22:02, rsw0x wrote: slices aren't arrays

Re: Preventing implicit conversion

On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 at 21:22:04 UTC, ixid wrote: On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 at 19:09:42 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote: On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 at 14:27:49 UTC, ixid wrote: Is there an elegant way of avoiding implicit conversion to int when you're using shorter types? Only with

Re: Preventing implicit conversion

On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 at 14:27:49 UTC, ixid wrote: Is there an elegant way of avoiding implicit conversion to int when you're using shorter types? Only with library solution. Implicit conversions are built into language.

Re: Overloading an imported function

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 12:05:27 UTC, Shriramana Sharma wrote: import std.math; real round(real val, int prec) { real pow = 10 ^^ prec; return round(val * pow) / pow; } Trying to compile this I get: foo.d(5): Error: function foo.round (real val, int prec) is not callable

Re: Array of subclasses

On Thursday, 22 October 2015 at 13:29:06 UTC, DarkRiDDeR wrote: I don't need the base class data. How to create a array of subclasses objects with the derived data members? The language is implemented in this way. You have already have the answer: writeln(Core.users.name) Out: USERS

Re: Array of subclasses

On Thursday, 22 October 2015 at 11:02:05 UTC, DarkRiDDeR wrote: This variant works strangely. Example: abstract class Addon { public string name = "0"; } class Users: Addon { override { public string name = "USERS"; } } static final class Core {

Re: Implicit conversion rules

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 19:49:35 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: On 10/21/2015 12:37 PM, Sigg wrote: > cause at least few more "fun" side effects. One of those side effects would be function calls binding silently to another overload: void foo(bool){/* ... */} void foo(int) {/* ... */}

Re: Implicit conversion rules

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 22:49:16 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Am Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:49:35 -0700 schrieb Ali Çehreli : On 10/21/2015 12:37 PM, Sigg wrote: > cause at least few more "fun" side effects. One of those side effects would be function calls binding

Re: how come is this legal? 'void fun(int){ }' ?

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 can test by compiling void test(int) { _param_0 = 0; } Nameless

Re: Cannot Qualify Variadic Functions with Lazy Arguments as nothrow

On Thursday, 14 May 2015 at 09:53:20 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote: At https://github.com/nordlow/justd/blob/master/algorithm_ex.d#L43 I've implemented a function either() with behaviour similar to the `or` function/operator in dynamic languages such as Python and Lisp. I'm almost satisified with

Re: Can't modify this

On Saturday, 28 June 2014 at 20:40:21 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote: This doesn't work: class Foo { this() { this = new Foo; } } Error: Cannot modify 'this' However you can do this: class Foo { this() { auto p = this; *p = new Foo(); } } It even changes the value of this!