What is the best way to forward a string[] as argument to a
function called through std.concurrency.spawn().
I need this in the following example where I start the vibe.d
event loop in the main thread (the only way I've managed to get
runEventLoop() to work) and run my other program logic in
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 06:23:24PM +, Nordlöw via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
What is the best way to forward a string[] as argument to a function
called through std.concurrency.spawn().
I need this in the following example where I start the vibe.d event
loop in the main thread (the only
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 18:33:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 06:23:24PM +, Nordlöw via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
What is the best way to forward a string[] as argument to a
function
called through std.concurrency.spawn().
I need this in
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 18:38:37 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
But this shouldn't be necessary, right? It's a mutable slice to
immutable data, but the slice is passed by value, so no mutable
sharing takes place.
I agree.
I'll use .idup anyhow. For this work I however have to do
void
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 18:38:37 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
But this shouldn't be necessary, right? It's a mutable slice to
immutable data, but the slice is passed by value, so no mutable
sharing takes place.
The elements of the slice itself are mutable, you can e.g. assign
some other
On 2014-08-07 20:23, Nordlöw wrote:
What is the best way to forward a string[] as argument to a function
called through std.concurrency.spawn().
What about just accessing core.runtime.Runtime.args from the new thread?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 18:23:26 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
What is the best way to forward a string[] as argument to a
function called through std.concurrency.spawn().
I need this in the following example where I start the vibe.d
event loop in the main thread (the only way I've managed to get
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 19:08:37 UTC, Johannes Blume wrote:
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 18:38:37 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
But this shouldn't be necessary, right? It's a mutable slice
to immutable data, but the slice is passed by value, so no
mutable sharing takes place.
The elements
