This fails to compile when accessing as m.pgoo() complaining
about postblit.
What is wrong with this?
Note: If I alias as array instead of map: alias const(X)[] Map;
it compiles fine.
Thanks
Dan
-
struct X { this(this) {} }
alias const(X)[string] Map;
@property int
This fails to compile when accessing as m.pgoo() complaining
about postblit.
What is wrong with this?
Note: If I alias as array instead of map: alias const(X)[] Map;
it compiles fine.
Thanks
Dan
-
struct X { this(this) {} }
alias const(X)[string] Map;
@property int
This fails to compile when accessing as m.pgoo() complaining
about postblit.
What is wrong with this?
Note: If I alias as array instead of map: alias const(X)[] Map;
it compiles fine.
Thanks
Dan
-
struct X { this(this) {} }
alias const(X)[string] Map;
@property int
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:00:11 Suliman wrote:
> import std.stdio;
>
> void main()
>
> {
> ReturnContent();
> }
>
>
> public class ReturnContent
> {
> void ReturnContent()
> {
> writeln("hello");
> }
> }
>
> Why I am getting this error?
> D2
It me
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
ReturnContent();
}
public class ReturnContent
{
void ReturnContent()
{
writeln("hello");
}
}
Why I am getting this error?
D2
Thanks for reply, hopefully this issue will be fixed sometime..
On Tuesday, 16 October 2012 at 14:43:09 UTC, m0rph wrote:
Hi! How I can return from function a reference to int?
The problem here isn't about the ref but rather the way
properties are implemented with +=. I believe this is one of the
older still-standing D bugs.
It rewrites your expresssion
Hi! How I can return from function a reference to int? Here is a
simple code, to demonstrate my problem:
struct Foo {
public:
@property int foo() const
{
return x_;
}
@property ref int foo(int value)
{
x_ = value
On Monday, 24 September 2012 at 11:39:08 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
Oh. I think I just got what your "reassign" was meant to do. I
think I see it now. I guess it does work nice actually.
I'd say that unfortunately, your *new* reassign is making the
assumption that it is possible to grab a refe
a[1 .. $]);
}
}
struct S
{
private int i;
@property int x(){return i;}
@property int x(int v){return i = v;}
}
void main()
{
S a = S(1);
S b = S(2);
S c = S(3);
a.x = b.x;
b.x = c.x;
c.x = 4;
writefln("%s %s %s", a.x, b.x, c.x);
reassign(
On Monday, 24 September 2012 at 07:00:37 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Sunday, 23 September 2012 at 21:44:20 UTC, comco wrote:
[SNIP]
Now we can implement our rotate in terms of reassign:
void rotate(node* u) {
auto v = u.right;
reassign(u.right, v.left, u);
}
This works and is g
On Sunday, 23 September 2012 at 21:44:20 UTC, comco wrote:
[SNIP]
Now we can implement our rotate in terms of reassign:
void rotate(node* u) {
auto v = u.right;
reassign(u.right, v.left, u);
}
This works and is general enough, but notice the duplication
of u.right. I don't l
ng an "Error: need 'this' to access
member x" at
line (*). Does that mean that we cannot alias a property as
an argument of a
template mixin?
By using s.x, you're not referencing the property, but
directly the
value s.x, which is known only at runtime: it cannot be a
tem
x" at
line (*). Does that mean that we cannot alias a property as an
argument of a
template mixin?
By using s.x, you're not referencing the property, but directly
the
value s.x, which is known only at runtime: it cannot be a
template
argument.
If x where a static member, you could pro
On 09/23/2012 11:49 AM, comco wrote:
For this program I'm getting an "Error: need 'this' to access member x"
at line (*). Does that mean that we cannot alias a property as an
argument of a template mixin?
import std.stdio;
mixin template T(alias a) {
void f() {
writeln
monarch_dodra already answered, but since, I typed this, I may as well
post it :)
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM, comco wrote:
> For this program I'm getting an "Error: need 'this' to access member x" at
> line (*). Does that mean that we cannot alias a property
On Sunday, 23 September 2012 at 18:48:14 UTC, comco wrote:
For this program I'm getting an "Error: need 'this' to access
member x" at line (*). Does that mean that we cannot alias a
property as an argument of a template mixin?
import std.stdio;
For this program I'm getting an "Error: need 'this' to access
member x" at line (*). Does that mean that we cannot alias a
property as an argument of a template mixin?
import std.stdio;
mixin template T(alias a) {
void f(
On 08/24/2012 09:39 AM, nocide wrote:
Am 23.08.2012 19:15, schrieb nocide:
struct has no default constructor and instances are initialized with the
init property.
Can I declare or override the init property for a custom defined struct?
Ok, the initializer forks fine for me,
but I&#x
Am 23.08.2012 19:15, schrieb nocide:
struct has no default constructor and instances are initialized with the
init property.
Can I declare or override the init property for a custom defined struct?
Ok, the initializer forks fine for me,
but I've encounterd following situation: (simpl
On 08/23/2012 12:38 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 23-Aug-12 23:33, Namespace wrote:
But to write your own init property would still be nice, or not?
Either way it has to be CTFEable. Can't you just do:
struct A{
X field = generateX();
}
and thus set .init to whatever you want.
Otherwi
:D I didn't know that, thanks.
On Friday, August 24, 2012 02:00:22 Namespace wrote:
> > I would expect you to be able to do
> >
> > test(NotNullable!Foo(new Foo));
> >
> > and with a helper function, you could have something like
> >
> > test(notNullable(new Foo));
> >
> > - Jonathan M Davis
>
> But then you have an lvalue
I would expect you to be able to do
test(NotNullable!Foo(new Foo));
and with a helper function, you could have something like
test(notNullable(new Foo));
- Jonathan M Davis
But then you have an lvalue and cannot receive it as "ref
NotNullable!Foo". Your struct would be copied with the (defa
On Friday, August 24, 2012 01:35:56 Namespace wrote:
> > If you want something that isn't nullable, you'll need a type
> > which which
> > isn't nullable, which means using a struct. I know that you
> > want non-nullable
> > references, but for D2, the best that you're going to get is a
> > struct
If you want something that isn't nullable, you'll need a type
which which
isn't nullable, which means using a struct. I know that you
want non-nullable
references, but for D2, the best that you're going to get is a
struct which
wraps a class.
- Jonathan M Davis
That would be fine if i only h
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 23:27:18 Namespace wrote:
> My idea was to declare your own .init in a class, not in a struct.
Well, the init for classes will always be null, because class references are
nullable. That's part of the language. Making it so that a class' init value
wasn't guaranteed
How would it be different from defining a default constructor?
Structs
specifically _don't_ have default constructors, because init
must be known at
compile time, and all kinds of restrictions would have to be
placed on a
default constructor (enough to make it pointless) to ensure
that it would
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 21:33:57 Namespace wrote:
> But to write your own init property would still be nice, or not?
How would it be different from defining a default constructor? Structs
specifically _don't_ have default constructors, because init must be known at
compile time,
But to write your own init property would still be nice, or not?
On 23-Aug-12 23:33, Namespace wrote:
But to write your own init property would still be nice, or not?
Either way it has to be CTFEable. Can't you just do:
struct A{
X field = generateX();
}
and thus set .init to whatever you want.
Otherwise it will inevitably rise question of the poi
On 23-Aug-12 22:44, Namespace wrote:
It would be great if you could declare your own .init as you can atm
with "new" (http://dlang.org/class.html#allocators).
Read on :
Note: Class allocators are deprecated in D2.
For example:
class Foo {
public:
init() {
this = new typeof(this
It would be great if you could declare your own .init as you can
atm with "new" (http://dlang.org/class.html#allocators).
For example:
class Foo {
public:
init() {
this = new typeof(this)();
}
}
So you could avoid a null declaration by default. :)
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 19:15:16 nocide wrote:
> struct has no default constructor and instances are initialized with the
> init property.
> Can I declare or override the init property for a custom defined struct?
The init property is defined by what you directly initialize the
[snip]
Ah thanks!
You just were a little bit faster :)
Am 23.08.2012 19:15, schrieb nocide:
struct has no default constructor and instances are initialized with the
init property.
Can I declare or override the init property for a custom defined struct?
I've just realized, that I just have to declare default initializer for
the members. This
On 08/23/2012 10:15 AM, nocide wrote:
struct has no default constructor and instances are initialized with the
init property.
Can I declare or override the init property for a custom defined struct?
You can define the initial values of each member:
struct S
{
int i = 42;
double d
struct has no default constructor and instances are initialized with the
init property.
Can I declare or override the init property for a custom defined struct?
On Friday, 29 June 2012 at 20:13:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2012 21:54:42 Zhenya wrote:
I see, I just thought that opCall @ property equivalent
opAssign
and wanted to check it out, and now I would be interested to
understand why it is not
I don't see how you
On Friday, June 29, 2012 21:54:42 Zhenya wrote:
> I see, I just thought that opCall @ property equivalent opAssign
> and wanted to check it out, and now I would be interested to
> understand why it is not
I don't see how you could think that it _would_ be. The _only_ way that
On Friday, June 29, 2012 21:08:05 Zhenya wrote:
> struct X
> {
> bool _x;
> A opCall(bool x) @property {_x = x;return this;}
> }
>
> void main()
> {
> X a;
> x = false;//the same that x.opCall(false)?
> }
>
> I thought that I could replace these opAssign,
On Friday, 29 June 2012 at 19:37:50 UTC, Namespace wrote:
This works:
import std.stdio;
struct X {
private:
bool _x;
public:
this(bool x) {
_x = x;
}
@property
bool Get() inout {
return this._x;
}
alias
This works:
import std.stdio;
struct X {
private:
bool _x;
public:
this(bool x) {
_x = x;
}
@property
bool Get() inout {
return this._x;
}
alias Get this;
typeof(this) opAssign(bool x
struct X
{
bool _x;
A opCall(bool x) @property {_x = x;return this;}
}
void main()
{
X a;
x = false;//the same that x.opCall(false)?
}
I thought that I could replace these opAssign, but the compiler
does not agree with me.
But why?
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 09:03:44 cal wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 June 2012 at 06:34:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > You can't overload on return type. The parameters need to be
> > different, or the functions are going to conflict.
>
> Ah, that explains it, thanks. I find ref properties
On Wednesday, 20 June 2012 at 06:34:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
You can't overload on return type. The parameters need to be
different, or the functions are going to conflict.
Ah, that explains it, thanks. I find ref properties useful for
making a member variable behave like it is public,
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 05:42:25 cal wrote:
> This doesn't compile, because the assignment matches both
> property functions in S:
>
> struct S
> {
> @property int a() { return _a; }
> @property ref int a() { return _a; }
> int _a;
> }
>
>
This doesn't compile, because the assignment matches both
property functions in S:
struct S
{
@property int a() { return _a; }
@property ref int a() { return _a; }
int _a;
}
int main()
{
S s;
s.a = 5;
}
But I would like to be able to do different things when I pass
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 18:12:39 UTC, Namespace wrote:
If i have this code:
class Bar {
public:
Foo GetFoo() {
return this._foo;
}
alias GetFoo this;
}
to allow access to Foo methods from Bar i get the error, that
"GetFoo" isn't a property if i use -prop
If i have this code:
class Bar {
public:
Foo GetFoo() {
return this._foo;
}
alias GetFoo this;
}
to allow access to Foo methods from Bar i get the error, that
"GetFoo" isn't a property if i use -property.
Why?
The solution is to set @property before "Foo GetFoo()&quo
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:21:00 -0500, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/02/2012 01:08 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Is there a reason why there's no .empty property for hashes? std.array
> defines it for arrays, and range types must have it defined.
Yes, empty is a part of the InputRang
On 03/02/2012 01:08 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Is there a reason why there's no .empty property for hashes? std.array
> defines it for arrays, and range types must have it defined.
Yes, empty is a part of the InputRange interface. Slices are InputRange
ranges but associative arr
Is there a reason why there's no .empty property for hashes? std.array
defines it for arrays, and range types must have it defined. But
hashes are left out even though they define .length. This could be put
in std.array:
@property bool empty(T)(in T a)
if (isAssociativeArray!T)
{
r
On 2012-02-08 01:50, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 07/02/2012 23:04, Timon Gehr wrote:
Try this:
int _foo;
@property ref foo() {
return _foo;
}
@property ref foo(int foo) {
return _foo = foo;
}
void main() {
++foo;
}
Using 'ref' instead of auto returns a reference to _foo, allo
On 07/02/2012 23:04, Timon Gehr wrote:
Try this:
int _foo;
@property ref foo() {
return _foo;
}
@property ref foo(int foo) {
return _foo = foo;
}
void main() {
++foo;
}
Using 'ref' instead of auto returns a reference to _foo, allowing it to
be modified.
Yes, but then
On 02/07/2012 11:54 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 07/02/2012 22:37, Vidar Wahlberg wrote:
Take the following code:
int _foo;
@property auto foo() {
return _foo;
}
@property auto foo(int foo) {
return _foo = foo;
}
void main() {
++foo;
}
This won't compile, and it sort of makes sense (at
On 07/02/2012 22:37, Vidar Wahlberg wrote:
Take the following code:
int _foo;
@property auto foo() {
return _foo;
}
@property auto foo(int foo) {
return _foo = foo;
}
void main() {
++foo;
}
This won't compile, and it sort of makes sense (at least to me), but is
it (or will it in the futu
Take the following code:
int _foo;
@property auto foo() {
return _foo;
}
@property auto foo(int foo) {
return _foo = foo;
}
void main() {
++foo;
}
This won't compile, and it sort of makes sense (at least to me), but is
it (or will it in the future be) possib
.property = "test";
.method = "test";
.method("test");
What does -property exactly do?
If you had like a dynamic where you don't know if it's
member is a property or a method. You would choose
method right?
scratch the invalid ones below.
----
:)
On 11/22/11, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>
> This one is not good either because it does not include TypeInfo, etc...
>
> __traits(classInstanceSize, T)) is better choice, as Ali said... :)
>
This one is not good either because it does not include TypeInfo, etc...
__traits(classInstanceSize, T)) is better choice, as Ali said... :)
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> .sizeof on a struct works nicely since it's a POD, but this can't work
> on classes since it just returns the pointer size.
>
> I don't know whether this is useful all that much, but I'm curious how
> large my classes are. Anyway, since I couldn't find anything in Phobos
I've had this bug recently:
auto workTid = spawn(&work);
setMaxMailboxSize(thisTid, 1, OnCrowding.throwException);
IOW, I've passed 'thisTid' instead of 'workTid' to the call.
Is there any reason why had to be a global function? Tid has a private
MessageBox which has the setMaxMsgs method. We ca
On 11/11/11, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> This is the standard way:
>
> __traits(classInstanceSize, Foo)
>
> Ali
>
Thanks! It's also more reliable it seems. :)
On 11/10/2011 05:44 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
.sizeof on a struct works nicely since it's a POD, but this can't work
on classes since it just returns the pointer size.
I don't know whether this is useful all that much, but I'm curious how
large my classes are. Anyway, since I couldn't find anyt
On 11/11/11, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> foreach (type; RepresentationTypeTuple!Foo) {
Way to screw that up. Fix:
foreach (type; RepresentationTypeTuple!T) {
.sizeof on a struct works nicely since it's a POD, but this can't work
on classes since it just returns the pointer size.
I don't know whether this is useful all that much, but I'm curious how
large my classes are. Anyway, since I couldn't find anything in Phobos
I've got this working:
import std
Thakns for details. Arfer another small benchmark, it appeared that addition
to AA is 10x times slower than removal from it. So that's why (2) isn't so
bad in my previous tests - most of time AA was adding elements to remove
later. Anyway if (2) also reallocates it's much much worse that (1).
On Sunday, November 06, 2011 04:11:07 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, November 06, 2011 13:39:27 Alex_Dovhal wrote:
> > "Marco Leise" wrote:
> > > No way I heard of. You could delete the entries one by one. :D
> > > I guess setting all references to null is the easiest way to 'clear'
> > > an
On Sunday, November 06, 2011 13:39:27 Alex_Dovhal wrote:
> "Marco Leise" wrote:
> > No way I heard of. You could delete the entries one by one. :D
> > I guess setting all references to null is the easiest way to 'clear' an
> > AA.
>
> Thanks. I tried both of them in small benchmark. Results are
>
"Marco Leise" wrote:
> No way I heard of. You could delete the entries one by one. :D
> I guess setting all references to null is the easiest way to 'clear' an
> AA.
Thanks. I tried both of them in small benchmark. Results are
(1) fill_values(aa); aa = null
(2) fill_values(aa); aa.remove(...)
For
l function call", that matches the part before
the dot with the first parameter of the function. This only works for
arrays. So I believe it is a free function (to invalidate/finalize a
variable) and not a property of an array at all.
Thanks for clarification.
So now my question and task change
part before
> the dot with the first parameter of the function. This only works for
> arrays. So I believe it is a free function (to invalidate/finalize a
> variable) and not a property of an array at all.
Thanks for clarification.
So now my question and task changes.
Is there a way to r
Am 05.11.2011, 21:30 Uhr, schrieb Alex_Dovhal :
Hi, D have "clear" property for arrays and AA, but I failed to find it's
description in docs. Where it's?
Are you this Alex?
http://aichallenge.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1315#p10776
As I understand it this functi
Hi, D have "clear" property for arrays and AA, but I failed to find it's
description in docs. Where it's?
Also I can use a forward function for toString, I didn't realize this until now:
string toString() { return to!string(payload); }
On 10/4/11, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> No "alias this" in the wrapper?
I shouldn't have named it Wrapper, you could better think of it as a
Widget with a position field, if that position is changed (and not
just read from) then some kind of repaint mechanism would be invoked.
However I shouldn't in
t; rhs;");
}
}
struct Wrapped(T)
{
T payload;
alias payload this;
void delegate() dg;
@property void changed(void delegate() dg)
{
this.dg = dg;
}
void opOpAssign(string op)(int rhs)
{
payload.opOpAssign!op(rhs);
dg();
Steven Schveighoffer:
> I suspect operator overloads are going to be a large hole in the interface
> design of many objects, but at least they won't be exploitable once
> compiled.
Just after the introduction of the new operator overload syntax I have
suggested to introduce strict tests to s
On 10/3/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Even so, it's better for people who are not familiar with the language to
> see correct code vs. code open to exploitation.
I can see your point. I'll make some simple constraints when I post
code samples like this from now on.
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:07:19 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 10/3/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Probably slightly off topic, but be very careful with operator overloads
without using constraints.
For example, I can do some weird things to your struct:
Point p;
p.opOpAssign!"*x; y+="(5
On 10/3/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Probably slightly off topic, but be very careful with operator overloads
> without using constraints.
>
> For example, I can do some weird things to your struct:
>
> Point p;
>
> p.opOpAssign!"*x; y+="(5);
>
> I suspect operator overloads are going to be a
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:57:33 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
Looks like I can use some D tricks for this:
import std.stdio;
struct Point
{
int x, y;
void opOpAssign(string op)(int rhs)
{
mixin ("x = x " ~ op ~ " rhs;");
mixin ("y = y " ~ op ~ " rhs;");
}
}
P
Forgot to add an opAssign in Wrapped as well:
void opAssign(T)(T rhs)
{
payload = rhs;
dg();
}
That takes care of assigning and ops that change the object's state.
{
T payload;
alias payload this;
void delegate() dg;
@property void changed(void delegate() dg)
{
this.dg = dg;
}
void opOpAssign(string op)(int rhs)
{
payload.opOpAssign!op(rhs);
dg();
}
}
struct Wrapper
{
this(int x)
{
poin
Sample code:
struct Point
{
int x, y;
void opOpAssign(string op)(int rhs)
{
mixin("x = x " ~ op ~ " rhs;");
mixin("y = y " ~ op ~ " rhs;");
}
}
struct Wrapper
{
void notifyChanged() { }
@property void point(Point
On Sunday, September 25, 2011 00:00:33 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I'm guessing the following is an accepts-invalid bug:
>
> void test(int) {}
> void main() { test = 4; }
>
> Anyway, if/when the above stops being legal I'd be nice if I could
> create property function
I'm guessing the following is an accepts-invalid bug:
void test(int) {}
void main() { test = 4; }
Anyway, if/when the above stops being legal I'd be nice if I could
create property functions using aliases. Something like this:
struct Bar
{
int getFoo() { return 0; }
void se
ntrol how _bar is manipulated.
I've lost the ability to use the with statement, which is a minor
inconvenience. Is there a specific reason why with() should not be
allowed to be used with property functions?
This works fine:
immutable Foo foo;
with (foo)
{
}
So I don't see why it sh
to use the with statement, which is a minor
inconvenience. Is there a specific reason why with() should not be
allowed to be used with property functions?
This works fine:
immutable Foo foo;
with (foo)
{
}
So I don't see why it shouldn't work on property functions?
== Auszug aus nrgyzer (nrgy...@gmail.com)'s Artikel
> Hi guys,
> I'm trying to read a property of a class like:
> class MyClass {
>private ubyte pToRead;
>@property ubyte toRead() { return pToRead; }
> }
> ...
> File f = new File(...);
> MyClass
Hi guys,
I'm trying to read a property of a class like:
class MyClass {
private ubyte pToRead;
@property ubyte toRead() { return pToRead; }
}
...
File f = new File(...);
MyClass c = new MyClass();
f.read(c.toRead);
...
but when I compile my code, I always get:
executable.
Thanks for your detailed answer :)
On 2011-05-30 08:54, choi heejo wrote:
> Greeting.
>
> I tried to compile this code with DMD 2.053:
>
> @property bool isZero(float value)
> {
> return value < float.epsilon;
> }
>
> void main()
> {
> 0.1f.isZero;
> readln();
> }
>
> But th
On 5/30/11 5:54 PM, choi heejo wrote:
Greeting.
I tried to compile this code with DMD 2.053:
@property bool isZero(float value)
{
return value < float.epsilon;
}
void main()
{
0.1f.isZero;
readln();
}
But the compiler said,
no property 'isZero' for type 'float'.
I
Greeting.
I tried to compile this code with DMD 2.053:
@property bool isZero(float value)
{
return value < float.epsilon;
}
void main()
{
0.1f.isZero;
readln();
}
But the compiler said,
no property 'isZero' for type 'float'.
I cannot understand this error.
On 2011-03-01 13:20:18 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer said:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:19:21 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:25:30 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
2. How can I make r.front = foo work, when I only have r.front(),
returning a ref (which seems like it is us
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:19:21 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:25:30 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
2. How can I make r.front = foo work, when I only have r.front(),
returning a ref (which seems like it is used in actual code)?
I think this is a bug, but I'm not e
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:25:30 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
> In Andrei's book, as well as in the Phobos source, there are property
> getters that return refs, as in...
>
> @property ref T front() {
> return _payload[0];
> }
>
> ... and code that uses
In Andrei's book, as well as in the Phobos source, there are property
getters that return refs, as in...
@property ref T front() {
return _payload[0];
}
... and code that uses this with simple assignments, such as:
r.front = foo;
For some reason, I can't get this to work
401 - 500 of 557 matches
Mail list logo
