• Matthias Walter (6/6) Feb 14 2008 Is there any other way of copying structs with '=' operator, other than ...
• Bill Baxter (13/23) Feb 14 2008 opAssign can be used to override the meaning of A=B where A and B are
• Matthias Walter (12/40) Feb 14 2008 Problem is that GMP-structs should behave like normal numbers and one al...
• Bill Baxter (8/53) Feb 14 2008 Yep. That's what it means. I don't know what's in gmp_struct but if it...
• Matthias Walter (4/60) Feb 14 2008 Okay, then I know on it for now. The problem is indeed, that the C-libra...
• Bill Baxter (11/72) Feb 14 2008 You can't make natural syntax work for everything but you _can_ make
• Jarrett Billingsley (3/5) Feb 14 2008 You say that like putting spoons in your eyes is a bad thing!
• Bill Baxter (4/11) Feb 14 2008 I'm quite fond of a spoon in the ear at least.
• downs (3/17) Feb 15 2008 How about keeping to D conventions, and using j = i.dup?
• Matthias Walter (12/31) Feb 16 2008 Do you code all your stuff with D conventions - _also_ for numbers?

Matthias Walter <walter mail.math.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:

Is there any other way of copying structs with '=' operator, other than the
default way of a bitwise copy? I quote the FAQ:

"Structs, being value objects, do get copied about. A copy is defined in D to
be a bit copy. I've never been comfortable with any object in C++ that does
something other than a bit copy when copied. Most of this other behavior stems
from that old problem of trying to manage memory. Absent that, there doesn't
seem to be a compelling rationale for having anything other than a bit copy."

The reason, I'm asking for this, is that I'm working on a GMP port. Because
numbers _must_ be value types, I must use structs. But as different instances
of the same number must reference another memory region of the GMP internals, I
must call special copy functions, if I do "a = b;" on two gmp-structs, a refers
to the same gmp-internal memory as b.

Is there any way to do this?

best regards
Matthias Walter

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Matthias Walter wrote:
 Is there any other way of copying structs with '=' operator, other than the
default way of a bitwise copy? I quote the FAQ:
 
 "Structs, being value objects, do get copied about. A copy is defined in D to
be a bit copy. I've never been comfortable with any object in C++ that does
something other than a bit copy when copied. Most of this other behavior stems
from that old problem of trying to manage memory. Absent that, there doesn't
seem to be a compelling rationale for having anything other than a bit copy."
 
 The reason, I'm asking for this, is that I'm working on a GMP port. Because
numbers _must_ be value types, I must use structs. But as different instances
of the same number must reference another memory region of the GMP internals, I
must call special copy functions, if I do "a = b;" on two gmp-structs, a refers
to the same gmp-internal memory as b.
 
 Is there any way to do this?
 
 best regards
 Matthias Walter

opAssign can be used to override the meaning of A=B where A and B are 
different types.  But by design you can't change the meaning A=B where A 
and B are the same type.

But you could make it work using any of the following:

A ~= B;
A.foo = B;
A = B.foo;
assign(A,B);
A.assign(B);
etc..

And I'm sure downs could suggest a few more workable syntaxes. :-)

--bb

Matthias Walter <walter mail.math.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:

Bill Baxter Wrote:

 Matthias Walter wrote:
 Is there any other way of copying structs with '=' operator, other than the
default way of a bitwise copy? I quote the FAQ:
 
 "Structs, being value objects, do get copied about. A copy is defined in D to
be a bit copy. I've never been comfortable with any object in C++ that does
something other than a bit copy when copied. Most of this other behavior stems
from that old problem of trying to manage memory. Absent that, there doesn't
seem to be a compelling rationale for having anything other than a bit copy."
 
 The reason, I'm asking for this, is that I'm working on a GMP port. Because
numbers _must_ be value types, I must use structs. But as different instances
of the same number must reference another memory region of the GMP internals, I
must call special copy functions, if I do "a = b;" on two gmp-structs, a refers
to the same gmp-internal memory as b.
 
 Is there any way to do this?
 
 best regards
 Matthias Walter

 
 opAssign can be used to override the meaning of A=B where A and B are 
 different types.  But by design you can't change the meaning A=B where A 
 and B are the same type.
 
 But you could make it work using any of the following:
 
 A ~= B;
 A.foo = B;
 A = B.foo;
 assign(A,B);
 A.assign(B);
 etc..
 
 And I'm sure downs could suggest a few more workable syntaxes. :-)
 
 --bb

Problem is that GMP-structs should behave like normal numbers and one also does
not write:
int i;
i.value = 10;

Does this mean, that in the current situation, it is impossible to port the GMP
library with structs so that 

T i,j = 0;
i = j;
j++;
assert (i == 0);

works for T = int, T = long, T = float, T = gmp_struct ?

best regards
Matthias Walter

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Matthias Walter wrote:
 Bill Baxter Wrote:
 
 Matthias Walter wrote:
 Is there any other way of copying structs with '=' operator, other than the
default way of a bitwise copy? I quote the FAQ:

 "Structs, being value objects, do get copied about. A copy is defined in D to
be a bit copy. I've never been comfortable with any object in C++ that does
something other than a bit copy when copied. Most of this other behavior stems
from that old problem of trying to manage memory. Absent that, there doesn't
seem to be a compelling rationale for having anything other than a bit copy."

 The reason, I'm asking for this, is that I'm working on a GMP port. Because
numbers _must_ be value types, I must use structs. But as different instances
of the same number must reference another memory region of the GMP internals, I
must call special copy functions, if I do "a = b;" on two gmp-structs, a refers
to the same gmp-internal memory as b.

 Is there any way to do this?

 best regards
 Matthias Walter

 opAssign can be used to override the meaning of A=B where A and B are 
 different types.  But by design you can't change the meaning A=B where A 
 and B are the same type.

 But you could make it work using any of the following:

 A ~= B;
 A.foo = B;
 A = B.foo;
 assign(A,B);
 A.assign(B);
 etc..

 And I'm sure downs could suggest a few more workable syntaxes. :-)

 --bb

 
 Problem is that GMP-structs should behave like normal numbers and one also
does not write:
 int i;
 i.value = 10;
 
 Does this mean, that in the current situation, it is impossible to port the
GMP library with structs so that 
 
 T i,j = 0;
 i = j;
 j++;
 assert (i == 0);
 
 works for T = int, T = long, T = float, T = gmp_struct ?
 
 best regards
 Matthias Walter

Yep.  That's what it means.  I don't know what's in gmp_struct but if it 
includes a pointer to something that must be allocated then D ain't 
gonna be able to do it.

But D2 is supposedly going to be getting features to make ref-counting 
smart pointer structs possible, and I'm pretty sure that means there has 
to be some way to trigger side effects upon assignments.

--bb

Matthias Walter <walter mail.math.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:

Bill Baxter Wrote:

 Matthias Walter wrote:
 Bill Baxter Wrote:
 
 Matthias Walter wrote:
 Is there any other way of copying structs with '=' operator, other than the
default way of a bitwise copy? I quote the FAQ:

 "Structs, being value objects, do get copied about. A copy is defined in D to
be a bit copy. I've never been comfortable with any object in C++ that does
something other than a bit copy when copied. Most of this other behavior stems
from that old problem of trying to manage memory. Absent that, there doesn't
seem to be a compelling rationale for having anything other than a bit copy."

 The reason, I'm asking for this, is that I'm working on a GMP port. Because
numbers _must_ be value types, I must use structs. But as different instances
of the same number must reference another memory region of the GMP internals, I
must call special copy functions, if I do "a = b;" on two gmp-structs, a refers
to the same gmp-internal memory as b.

 Is there any way to do this?

 best regards
 Matthias Walter

 opAssign can be used to override the meaning of A=B where A and B are 
 different types.  But by design you can't change the meaning A=B where A 
 and B are the same type.

 But you could make it work using any of the following:

 A ~= B;
 A.foo = B;
 A = B.foo;
 assign(A,B);
 A.assign(B);
 etc..

 And I'm sure downs could suggest a few more workable syntaxes. :-)

 --bb

 
 Problem is that GMP-structs should behave like normal numbers and one also
does not write:
 int i;
 i.value = 10;
 
 Does this mean, that in the current situation, it is impossible to port the
GMP library with structs so that 
 
 T i,j = 0;
 i = j;
 j++;
 assert (i == 0);
 
 works for T = int, T = long, T = float, T = gmp_struct ?
 
 best regards
 Matthias Walter

 
 Yep.  That's what it means.  I don't know what's in gmp_struct but if it 
 includes a pointer to something that must be allocated then D ain't 
 gonna be able to do it.
 
 But D2 is supposedly going to be getting features to make ref-counting 
 smart pointer structs possible, and I'm pretty sure that means there has 
 to be some way to trigger side effects upon assignments.
 
 --bb

Okay, then I know on it for now. The problem is indeed, that the C-library for
GMP must allocate some memory for the number, meaning you always only maintain
some pointers to that memory. bitwise-copy would then lead to a double
reference to the same number...

best regards
Matthias Walter

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Matthias Walter wrote:
 Bill Baxter Wrote:
 
 Matthias Walter wrote:
 Bill Baxter Wrote:

 Matthias Walter wrote:
 Is there any other way of copying structs with '=' operator, other than the
default way of a bitwise copy? I quote the FAQ:

 "Structs, being value objects, do get copied about. A copy is defined in D to
be a bit copy. I've never been comfortable with any object in C++ that does
something other than a bit copy when copied. Most of this other behavior stems
from that old problem of trying to manage memory. Absent that, there doesn't
seem to be a compelling rationale for having anything other than a bit copy."

 The reason, I'm asking for this, is that I'm working on a GMP port. Because
numbers _must_ be value types, I must use structs. But as different instances
of the same number must reference another memory region of the GMP internals, I
must call special copy functions, if I do "a = b;" on two gmp-structs, a refers
to the same gmp-internal memory as b.

 Is there any way to do this?

 best regards
 Matthias Walter

 opAssign can be used to override the meaning of A=B where A and B are 
 different types.  But by design you can't change the meaning A=B where A 
 and B are the same type.

 But you could make it work using any of the following:

 A ~= B;
 A.foo = B;
 A = B.foo;
 assign(A,B);
 A.assign(B);
 etc..

 And I'm sure downs could suggest a few more workable syntaxes. :-)

 --bb

 Problem is that GMP-structs should behave like normal numbers and one also
does not write:
 int i;
 i.value = 10;

 Does this mean, that in the current situation, it is impossible to port the
GMP library with structs so that 

 T i,j = 0;
 i = j;
 j++;
 assert (i == 0);

 works for T = int, T = long, T = float, T = gmp_struct ?

 best regards
 Matthias Walter

 Yep.  That's what it means.  I don't know what's in gmp_struct but if it 
 includes a pointer to something that must be allocated then D ain't 
 gonna be able to do it.

 But D2 is supposedly going to be getting features to make ref-counting 
 smart pointer structs possible, and I'm pretty sure that means there has 
 to be some way to trigger side effects upon assignments.

 --bb

 
 Okay, then I know on it for now. The problem is indeed, that the C-library for
GMP must allocate some memory for the number, meaning you always only maintain
some pointers to that memory. bitwise-copy would then lead to a double
reference to the same number...
 
 best regards
 Matthias Walter

You can't make natural syntax work for everything but you _can_ make 
unnatural syntax work for everything.  I.e. you could make it so that:

T i,j = 0;
assign(i,j);
j++;
assert(i==0);

works for all the T's you want it to.
Not quite as sweet as having it all appear to be built-in but better 
than a spoon in the eye.

--bb

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fp1hvu$1hom$1 digitalmars.com...

 Not quite as sweet as having it all appear to be built-in but better than 
 a spoon in the eye.

You say that like putting spoons in your eyes is a bad thing! 

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fp1hvu$1hom$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 Not quite as sweet as having it all appear to be built-in but better than 
 a spoon in the eye.

 
 You say that like putting spoons in your eyes is a bad thing! 

I'm quite fond of a spoon in the ear at least.
(As long as it's this one: http://www.spoontheband.com/)

--bb

downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 
 You can't make natural syntax work for everything but you _can_ make
 unnatural syntax work for everything.  I.e. you could make it so that:
 
 T i,j = 0;
 assign(i,j);
 j++;
 assert(i==0);
 
 works for all the T's you want it to.
 Not quite as sweet as having it all appear to be built-in but better
 than a spoon in the eye.
 
 --bb

How about keeping to D conventions, and using j = i.dup?

 --downs

Matthias Walter <walter mail.math.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:

downs Wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:
 
 You can't make natural syntax work for everything but you _can_ make
 unnatural syntax work for everything.  I.e. you could make it so that:
 
 T i,j = 0;
 assign(i,j);
 j++;
 assert(i==0);
 
 works for all the T's you want it to.
 Not quite as sweet as having it all appear to be built-in but better
 than a spoon in the eye.
 
 --bb

 
 How about keeping to D conventions, and using j = i.dup?
 
  --downs

Do you code all your stuff with D conventions - _also_ for numbers?

| int start = 10;
| int end = 20;
| 
| for (i = start.dup; i < end; i++)
| {
| 
| }

when dealing with integers, you normally don't use .dup, do you? And the sense
of GMP is the easy usage of arbitrary precision numbers as they were ints,
longs or floats...

best regards
Matthias Walter