On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 05:07:00 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 20:13:00 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 08:40:02 UTC, Arafel wrote:
Just as a follow-up, I think it's looking more and more like
a compiler bug. It works properly both with gdc and ldmd2.
Should
On 07/17/2016 12:38 AM, Seb wrote:
> There is no need for a module, but dub by default only checks files in
> the 'source' folder.
The file is already in the 'source' folder.
> For such simple tests you could also run them directly with rdmd
> -unittest. There is an additional -main flag if you
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 22:05:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
actually, `foreach (v; rng)` looks like `foreach` is *reusing*
*existing* *variable*. most of the time you can put `immutable`
or something like that there to note that it is not reusing
(purely cosmetical thing), but sometimes you
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 20:13:00 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 08:40:02 UTC, Arafel wrote:
Just as a follow-up, I think it's looking more and more like a
compiler bug. It works properly both with gdc and ldmd2.
Should I make a bug report about that?
Yes please.
Hi, you
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 01:57:21 UTC, pineapple wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 22:05:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
actually, `foreach (v; rng)` looks like `foreach` is *reusing*
*existing* *variable*. most of the time you can put
`immutable` or something like that there to note that it is
not
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 01:57:21 UTC, pineapple wrote:
Chipping in my agreement. foreach(x; y) makes as much syntactic
sense as for(x = 0; x < y; x++) where x was not previously
defined. One does not expect something that does not look like
every other variable definition in the language to
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 02:04:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
(x) => x; // defines a new variable
foreach isn't alone.
compiler should allow `auto` here too.
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 00:29:12 UTC, Max Klimov wrote:
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 23:07:20 UTC, Andrey wrote:
Hi guys!
Can any one tell me - how to pass an array of int's in to the
template struct at compile-time, and how to use int there?
Like this:
On 07/15/2016 03:58 PM, Max Klimov wrote:
> I'm wondering how I can use the output of __traits(getOverloads, a,
> "name").
Apparently, it produces a delegate of calling name() on 'a'.
> The example in the doc uses direct indexing (like
> __traits(getOverloads, a, "name")[0](param)) and it
Say I have a package called "main" and a sub-package in a
"complicatedexample" directory, and my dub.json in "main" looks
sort of like:
"subPackages": [
"./complicatedexample/"
],
Let's say I do *not* have ":complicatedexample" in my
dependencies for "main", but "complicatedexample" itself
On 2016-07-16 04:01, cy wrote:
So, it applies to member functions too (for C++)? Just as if you passed
an extern(C++) directive to each one? And only their signature/mangling
is changed, so that say in gdb for instance, they represent Type::member
instead of zzTypezdxqdstuffmember?
Yes. It's
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
.. but why?
because. i've lost that fight too.
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 20:00:39 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:11:34 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 21:39:42 UTC, cym13 wrote:
A variable definition in a foreach
-> A variable definition *with auto* in a foreach
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 21:39:42 UTC, cym13 wrote:
However auto should be allowed here. You are defining a
variable and the fact that it's in a foreach shouldn't be of
any importance. The language should enforce orthogonality of
orthogonal things, not break it. A variable definition in a
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 11:59:51 UTC, Bahman Movaqar wrote:
On 07/15/2016 04:16 PM, Jerry wrote:
Unittests have to be inside a module to be run on DMD atleast.
So putting module foo at top should fix it.
Strange. Still not getting picked up.
$ dmd --version
DMD64 D Compiler
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 08:40:02 UTC, Arafel wrote:
Just as a follow-up, I think it's looking more and more like a
compiler bug. It works properly both with gdc and ldmd2. Should
I make a bug report about that?
Yes please.
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 01:10:09 UTC, Eppason wrote:
How can I create a new type NT from type T that such that NT is
compatible with T when reduced to the size of T, but has size n?
Another way to see it is that I would like to construct a type
at compile time that has the same layout as
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 10:13:38 UTC, dom wrote:
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 00:33:50 UTC, ethgeh wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 19:41:53 UTC, dom wrote:
how can i run my unittests for a dynamic library? some weird
conflict is reported between main functions, my project
doesnt
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:01:29 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, Adam Sansier wrote:
Um, no, I revived it so that people searching for answers
wouldn't be led astray by idiots who pretend to know
everything.
My word is not COM specification of course,
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 00:51:16 UTC, ethgeh wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 23:06:44 UTC, flamencofantasy
wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, Adam Sansier wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 22:09:05 UTC, flamencofantasy
wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 20:39:00
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:01:29 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, Adam Sansier wrote:
Um, no, I revived it so that people searching for answers
wouldn't be led astray by idiots who pretend to know
everything.
My word is not COM specification of course,
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but why?
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but why?
`Note: The ForeachTypeAttribute is implicit, and when a type is
not specified, it is inferred. In that
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but why?
Arbitrary limitation. If you want to say how surprising and
uselessly limiting it is wait at the end of the
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:11:34 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but why?
Arbitrary limitation. If you want to say how
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 20:00:39 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:11:34 UTC, cym13 wrote:
[...]
It's not arbitrary. It keeps the language simple and easy to
read. After all the entire auto keyword is just there, because
the compiler needs a keyword and in loops it's
27 matches
Mail list logo
