~~~gotoskip.d
int main ()
{
string[string] aa;
goto A; // line 4
aa["X"] = "Y";// line 5
A:
return 0;
}
~~~
$ dmd gotoskip.d
gotoskip.d(4): Error: goto skips declaration of variable
gotoskip.main.__aaval2 at gotoskip.d(5)
What's wrong here? Only found Issue 11
I have an iterator that steps along a 2D vector path command by
command and uses opIndex to give access to the points for the
current command. The issue is that there's a shared point between
commands, so when the iterator is on a given command, it also
needs to also allow access to the end poi
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 13:55:48 UTC, kdevel wrote:
~~~gotoskip.d
int main ()
{
string[string] aa;
goto A; // line 4
aa["X"] = "Y";// line 5
A:
return 0;
}
~~~
$ dmd gotoskip.d
gotoskip.d(4): Error: goto skips declaration of variable
gotoskip.main.__aav
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 13:55:48 UTC, kdevel wrote:
goto A; // line 4
aa["X"] = "Y";// line 5
A:
Creating a scope
{ aa["X"] = "Y"; } // line 5
works around the issue.
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC, cerjones wrote:
I have an iterator that steps along a 2D vector path command by
command and uses opIndex to give access to the points for the
current command. The issue is that there's a shared point
between commands, so when the iterator is on a gi
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 14:25:41 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC, cerjones wrote:
Not possible, indexes are of type size_t which is unsigned. If
you want negative indexes you need to wrap arrays in your own
implementation and offset 0 so that negative in
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 13:55:48 UTC, kdevel wrote:
[...]
created https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21571
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 14:47:38 UTC, cerjones wrote:
ohreally?
I thought you were talking about the built in arrays.
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 15:49:02 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 14:47:38 UTC, cerjones wrote:
ohreally?
I thought you were talking about the built in arrays.
Since you create your own implementation just as you showed you
are basically free to do anything. That
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 14:11:15 UTC, kdevel wrote:
Creating a scope
works around the issue.
Another way to work around the issue is to use «asm {jmp label;}»
(replace jmp by whatever equivalent is there on the target
architecture.)
Yes it's ugly, but it bypasses the arbitrary limita
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 15:55:02 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 15:49:02 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 14:47:38 UTC, cerjones wrote:
ohreally?
I thought you were talking about the built in arrays.
Since you create your own implementation jus
auto sp1 = "a|b|c".splitter('|');
writeln(sp1.back); // ok
auto sp2 = "a.b|c".splitter!(v => !isAlphaNum(v));
writeln(sp2.back); // error, not bidirectional
Why? is it an oversight, or is there a good reason for it?
-Steve
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC, cerjones wrote:
I'm a bit unsure if this is reasonable or not.
Thoughts?
Signed indexes are fine, if there is a principled reason to use
them. Just make sure that you are consistent by making `length`,
`opDollar`, etc. use signed types, as well.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:43:37PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> auto sp1 = "a|b|c".splitter('|');
>
> writeln(sp1.back); // ok
>
> auto sp2 = "a.b|c".splitter!(v => !isAlphaNum(v));
>
> writeln(sp2.back); // error, not bidirectional
>
> Why? is it an oversight,
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 05:20:27 UTC, frame wrote:
I was not asking here to re-produce my code or debug since it
cannot provide a snippet if I do not know what could cause the
error.
Generally, I don't need to know what causes an error in order to
produce an MCVE. I have successfully
On Friday, 22 January 2021 at 00:59:32 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
2) Remove, simplify, or mock up/stub out (like for unit tests)
some large chunk of the remaining code in the program, from a
part of the program that I *think* is unrelated to the error.
3) Re-test the program.
a) If the failure g
On Friday, 22 January 2021 at 00:59:32 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
Generally, I don't need to know what causes an error in order
to produce an MCVE. I have successfully done so on many
occasions. It's annoying and slow, but usually very possible.
I know that I have to debug it myself, but if somebo
On Friday, 22 January 2021 at 02:18:11 UTC, frame wrote:
Anyway. It was a simple question not a prove that there is a
bug in the compiler.
isCallable is intended to either evaluate to a boolean, or give a
clear compile-time error message. Since it did neither of those
things for you, I suspec
On Friday, 22 January 2021 at 02:43:44 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
No, we're just used to helping each other get to the bottom of
things like this. No one asked you for anything different from
what we generally expect of each other in this context. This
specific expectation mostly exists because, of
On Friday, 22 January 2021 at 03:08:23 UTC, frame wrote:
It's like asking your mechanican if he can guess what's causing
the weird sound in the car and he replies with: why didn't you
disassemble your car already?
Cars are mass-produced copies of a relatively small number of
rather similar de
On 1/21/21 4:51 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> But I wouldn't be surprised if there was some
> surprising corner case for which this doesn't work / would have onerous
> characteristics.
Likely. :) Here is one for uniq.back, which includes a link at the
bottom for zip.back:
https://issues.dlang.org
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 22:43:37 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
auto sp1 = "a|b|c".splitter('|');
writeln(sp1.back); // ok
auto sp2 = "a.b|c".splitter!(v => !isAlphaNum(v));
writeln(sp2.back); // error, not bidirectional
Why? is it an oversight, or is there a good reason for it?
-S
On Friday, 22 January 2021 at 05:51:38 UTC, Jon Degenhardt wrote:
On Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 22:43:37 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
auto sp1 = "a|b|c".splitter('|');
writeln(sp1.back); // ok
auto sp2 = "a.b|c".splitter!(v => !isAlphaNum(v));
writeln(sp2.back); // error, not bidirectio
On Friday, 22 January 2021 at 03:40:40 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
Cars are mass-produced copies of a relatively small number of
rather similar designs, and mechanics' customers *pay them* to
understand and fix their cars so that the customers don't have
to.
I knew this argument comes...
Neverthe
24 matches
Mail list logo
