On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:43, Juanjo Alvarez wrote:
> > enum string code = "auto deleg = &" ~ className ~ "." ~ methodName ~ ";";
> > // auto deleg = &MyClass.mymethod;
> > mixin(code); // created deleg, you're good to go.
>
> I tried it and worked like a charm (but I've changed my code so inste
Is it in any way possible to copy a delegate? Take this program for example:
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
int a = 0;
int func()
{
return a++;
}
int delegate() b = &func;
int delegate() c = b;
writeln(b());
writeln(c());
writeln(b());
}
It will p
Philippe Sigaud wrote:
>> 1. Having the strings, defined at compile time, "MyClass" and "mymethod",
>> how could I could I get to a delegate to MyClass.mymethod?
>>
>
> You can insert them in a piece of code as a string, and then mix it in:
>
> enum string code = "auto deleg = &" ~ className ~
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Except that since when is anything implictly convertable to immutable?
Implicitly converted to const, yes. That happens often enough, but
immutable?
Anything that does not contain pointers or references to non-immutable
data is implicitly convertible to immutable, if
On Saturday 18 September 2010 18:16:31 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I don't think that *anything*
> is implicitly convertable to immutable. const yes, but not immutable
Actually, I guess that value types are implicitly convertible to immutable in
the sense that you can create a new immutable value f
On Saturday 18 September 2010 17:33:21 Simen kjaeraas wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > If a pure function takes a reference/pointer, does that state that the
> > result of
> > the function will be the same on two calls to it if the
> > reference/pointer points
> > to the same data in both case
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If a pure function takes a reference/pointer, does that state that the
result of
the function will be the same on two calls to it if the
reference/pointer points
to the same data in both cases or if the data itself is unchanged?
If it's a matter of pointing to the s
If a pure function takes a reference/pointer, does that state that the result
of
the function will be the same on two calls to it if the reference/pointer
points
to the same data in both cases or if the data itself is unchanged?
If it's a matter of pointing to the same data, then that could be
On Saturday 18 September 2010 08:50:41 Graham Nicholls wrote:
> Thanks. I figured that it was a duplicate definition, but not if I leave
> out st.stream, then OpenException is undefined. Is there a documentation
> for the exceptions which are in the relevant packages - I'll struggle
> without it!
Ivo Kasiuk wrote:
> Exploring the example a bit further:
> If C's malloc is used instead of GC.malloc then the deallocators also
> are not called and the program runs out of memory. How are the objects
> supposed to get finalized in this case - do I have to use the delete
> keyword explicitly?
On Saturday 18 September 2010 06:45:51 Ivo Kasiuk wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 18.09.2010, 02:15 -0700 schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> > Okay, if I try and compile the following program.
> >
> > struct S
> > {
> >
> > @property S save() const
> > {
> >
> > return this;
> >
> >
On Saturday 18 September 2010 09:58:15 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:15:38 -0400, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Okay, if I try and compile the following program.
> >
> > struct S
> > {
> >
> > @property S save() const
> > {
> >
> > return this;
> >
> > Exploring the example a bit further:
> > If C's malloc is used instead of GC.malloc then the deallocators also
> > are not called and the program runs out of memory. How are the objects
> > supposed to get finalized in this case - do I have to use the delete
> > keyword explicitly?
>
> If you
>
>
> My main problem with these solutions is that they're largely runtime
> solutions. Not that calling a function with named parameters is very likely
> to happen in an inner loop, now I think of it...
>
I imagined the foo("b", 100, "d", true) version to be largely CT: variadic
list, testing and
Philippe Sigaud wrote:
It seems doable to have some kind of function transformer (adaptor?) for
this.
from:
int foo(int a = 0, int b = 1, double c = 0.0, bool d = false) { return
1;}
alias namedParams!foo nfoo;
nfoo("d", true); // a = 0, b = 1, c = 0.0, d = true
nfoo("d", true, "b", 100)
It seems doable to have some kind of function transformer (adaptor?) for
this.
from:
int foo(int a = 0, int b = 1, double c = 0.0, bool d = false) { return 1;}
alias namedParams!foo nfoo;
nfoo("d", true); // a = 0, b = 1, c = 0.0, d = true
nfoo("d", true, "b", 100); // a=0, b=100, c=0.0, d=true
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 19:59, Juanjo Alvarez wrote:
> I wanted to ask how these would be done, because I can't find how to do it:
>
> 1. Having the strings, defined at compile time, "MyClass" and "mymethod",
> how could I could I get to a delegate to MyClass.mymethod?
>
You can insert them in a
Ivo Kasiuk wrote:
Ok, that makes sense. So the deallocators really should not get called
in this case. But why are the destructors not invoked when the GC
finalizes the objects?
For S1 and S2, this is a known bug - destructors of structs on the heap
don't get called.
As for C1, I have no ide
Hi,
I've just arrived to D 2.0 and after reading Andrei's book I'm loving
everything I'm seeing (except the bugs, of course).
I wanted to ask how these would be done, because I can't find how to do it:
1. Having the strings, defined at compile time, "MyClass" and "mymethod",
how could I could I
> An interesting case is when using C's malloc for C1 and using the scope
> attribute for c1:
>
> class C1 {
> ubyte[1_000_000] buf;
> new(size_t size) {
> void* ptr = std.c.stdlib.malloc(size);
> if (ptr is null)
> throw new OutOfMemoryError(__FILE__, __LINE__);
> writefln("
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:15:38 -0400, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Okay, if I try and compile the following program.
struct S
{
@property S save() const
{
return this;
}
int[] _val;
}
void main()
{
}
I get the error message
d.d(5): Error: cannot implicitly convert expre
Am Samstag, den 18.09.2010, 10:08 -0400 schrieb Sean Kelly:
> Ivo Kasiuk Wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > to improve my understanding of the GC and when/how
> > allocators/deallocators and constructors/destructors get called, I wrote
> > a little test program. And now I understand even less than before..
Thanks. I figured that it was a duplicate definition, but not if I leave out
st.stream, then OpenException is undefined. Is there a documentation for the
exceptions which are in the relevant packages - I'll struggle without it!
And thanks, all for the help - much appreciated.
BTW, am I making a
Ivo Kasiuk Wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to improve my understanding of the GC and when/how
> allocators/deallocators and constructors/destructors get called, I wrote
> a little test program. And now I understand even less than before...
...
> Running this with DMD 2.049, I observed the following:
>
> - S1(i
Am Samstag, den 18.09.2010, 02:15 -0700 schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> Okay, if I try and compile the following program.
>
> struct S
> {
> @property S save() const
> {
> return this;
> }
>
> int[] _val;
> }
>
> void main()
> {
> }
>
Actually, wouldn't it be much more simp
Hi,
to improve my understanding of the GC and when/how
allocators/deallocators and constructors/destructors get called, I wrote
a little test program. And now I understand even less than before...
Here is the program:
import core.memory;
import std.stdio;
str
Greetings!
I want to have a try on dflplot.But I don't find module dstats.all which is
used by dflplot.d,could anybody let me where it is?
Thank you.
On 2010-09-18 00:37, Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
I just could promise I've seen in D2 something like in scripting languages:
module test;
void main (string[] args) {
test(b = "test");
}
void test(string a = "a", string b = "b", string c = "c") {
}
Basically picking just right parameter while oth
Okay, if I try and compile the following program.
struct S
{
@property S save() const
{
return this;
}
int[] _val;
}
void main()
{
}
I get the error message
d.d(5): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (this) of type const(S) to S
If I remove const from save()
I assume that if you declare a member function as pure, then all of its
parameters - including the invisible this - are included in that. That is, if
all of them - including the invisible this - have the same value, then the
result will be the same.
I'm not quite sure way (perhaps because pure
30 matches
Mail list logo
