On 2018-05-22 18:34:34 +, Ali ehreli said:
An idiom known in C++ circles is a Lippincott function:
https://cppsecrets.blogspot.ca/2013/12/using-lippincott-function-for.html
Just wanted to mention that it can be a part of a clean solution.
Thanks, and I assume that D has the same pro
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 02:24:08 UTC, IntegratedDimensions
wrote:
In some cases the decision holds for continuous ranges. For
some 0 <= n <= N the decision is constant, but n is
arbitrary(determined by unknown factors at compile time).
One can speed up the routine by using something akin
On 05/23/2018 12:47 AM, Robert M. Münch wrote:
On 2018-05-22 18:34:34 +, Ali ‡ehreli said:
An idiom known in C++ circles is a Lippincott function:
https://cppsecrets.blogspot.ca/2013/12/using-lippincott-function-for.html
Just wanted to mention that it can be a part of a clean soluti
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 04:07:25 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On 05/23/2018 12:47 AM, Robert M. Münch wrote:
> > On 2018-05-22 18:34:34 +, Ali ‡ehreli said:
> >> An idiom known in C++ circles is a Lippincott function:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://cppsecrets.blogspot.ca/2013/12/us
On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 19:44:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Walter wants to use assertions to then have the compiler make
assumptions about the code and optimized based on it, but he
hasn't implemented anything like that, and there are a number
of arguments about why it's a very bad idea -
On 24/05/2018 1:20 AM, Malte wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 21:45:07 UTC, IntegratedDimensions wrote:
an idea to lock data by removing the reference:
class A
{
Lockable!Data data;
}
[...]
This sounds like you are looking for is an atomic swap. Afaik it doesn't
exist in the standard li
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 21:45:07 UTC, IntegratedDimensions
wrote:
an idea to lock data by removing the reference:
class A
{
Lockable!Data data;
}
[...]
This sounds like you are looking for is an atomic swap. Afaik it
doesn't exist in the standard library. You could use asm for the
XCH
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 13:24:35 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 24/05/2018 1:20 AM, Malte wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 21:45:07 UTC, IntegratedDimensions
wrote:
an idea to lock data by removing the reference:
class A
{
Lockable!Data data;
}
[...]
This sounds like you are looki
This is a question is about usage of
´each´
https://dlang.org/phobos/std_algorithm_iteration.html#each
with a type where different opApply overloads are defined. Say, I
have something like this:
´´´
void main()
{
import std.stdio : writeln;
import std.algorithm : each;
On 24/05/2018 1:29 AM, Malte wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 13:24:35 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 24/05/2018 1:20 AM, Malte wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 21:45:07 UTC, IntegratedDimensions wrote:
an idea to lock data by removing the reference:
class A
{
Lockable!Data data;
}
[
On 5/23/18 9:37 AM, Alex wrote:
This is a question is about usage of
´each´
https://dlang.org/phobos/std_algorithm_iteration.html#each
with a type where different opApply overloads are defined. Say, I have
something like this:
´´´
void main()
{
import std.stdio : writeln;
import std
On 05/23/2018 06:49 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Apparently, but that's not very good. IMO, it should use the same rules
as foreach. In which case, BOTH lines should fail to compile.
-Steve
I think this is a compiler bug (limitation), which I think has been
reported already (or similar
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 13:49:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Right, but not foreach(el1, el2; c), which is the equivalent of
your each call.
Yes. I tried this in the first place and get a compiler error.
But it seemed logical to me, that if I define two opApply
overloads, which bo
On 5/23/18 9:59 AM, Alex wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 13:49:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Right, but not foreach(el1, el2; c), which is the equivalent of your
each call.
Yes. I tried this in the first place and get a compiler error. But it
seemed logical to me, that if I define
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 14:19:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 5/23/18 9:59 AM, Alex wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 13:49:45 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
Right, but not foreach(el1, el2; c), which is the equivalent
of your each call.
Yes. I tried this in the first place
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 14:24:18 UTC, Alex wrote:
Ah... ok. Then, let me file a bug...
Bug filed.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18898
On Monday, 7 May 2018 at 18:10:14 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
On Saturday, 5 May 2018 at 09:32:32 UTC, Brian wrote:
On Thursday, 3 May 2018 at 10:27:47 UTC, Pasqui23 wrote:
Last commit on https://github.com/buggins/hibernated
was almost a year ago
So what is the status of HibernateD?Should I u
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 13:36:20 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 24/05/2018 1:29 AM, Malte wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 13:24:35 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 24/05/2018 1:20 AM, Malte wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 21:45:07 UTC,
IntegratedDimensions wrote:
an idea to lock da
read fails with both uint and ulong on 64bit platform:
Error: template std.bitmanip.read cannot deduce function from
argument types !(ulong)(ubyte[8]), candidates are:
C:\ldc2-1.9.0-windows-x64\bin\..\import\std\bitmanip.d(3213,3):
std.bitmanip.read(T, Endian endianness = Endian.bigEndi
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 19:36:07 Dr.No via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> read fails with both uint and ulong on 64bit platform:
>
> Error: template std.bitmanip.read cannot deduce function from
> argument types !(ulong)(ubyte[8]), candidates are:
> C:\ldc2-1.9.0-windows-x64\bin\..\import\std\bi
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 19:49:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 19:36:07 Dr.No via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
As the template constraint in the error message says, read
requires an input range. Static arrays are not input ranges.
You need to give it
On 5/23/18 3:53 PM, Dr.No wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 19:49:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 19:36:07 Dr.No via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
As the template constraint in the error message says, read requires an
input range. Static arrays are not i
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 10:55:02 UTC, Malte wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 02:24:08 UTC, IntegratedDimensions
wrote:
[...]
I would just do
[...]
[...]
Thanks, I didn't think about using a for loop like that. While it
is not the most general it does solve the specific case for
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 03:12:52 UTC, IntegratedDimensions
wrote:
I knew someone was going to say that and I forgot to say DON'T!
Saying to profile when I clearly said these ARE cases where
they are slow is just moronic. Please don't use default answers
to arguments.
This was a general
On 2018-05-22 18:33:06 +, Jacob Carlborg said:
You can always create a function that takes a delegate or lambda and
handles the exception in the function. Here are three versions of the
same thing, depending on how you want the call site to look like.
Hi, great! Thanks for the examples...
25 matches
Mail list logo
