www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - opDollar fixed??

reply "Era Scarecrow" <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:
  Wasn't opDollar was fixed? Slices don't seem to be working... In 
one of my tests (can't duplicate here for some reason) using 
__dollar when it would see __dollar it complained about needing 
'this' access.

struct S {
   int[] x;
   this(int[] x) {this.x = x;}
   int opDollar() {return x.length;}
   int __dollar() {return x.length;} //doesn't see this either
   int[] opSlice(int s, int e) {return x[s .. e];}
   int opIndex(int i) {return x[i];}
}

unittest {
   S s1 = [1,2,3];
   int last = s1[$ - 1];  //works
   int[] x = s1[0 .. $];  //needs __dollar??

   writeln(last); //never gets here, but should be 3
   writeln(x);    //never gets here, but should be [1,2,3]
}
Dec 29 2012
parent reply "Era Scarecrow" <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:
  Oh yes, dmd version 2.60, Windows 32bit version. I pretty sure 
it would propagate all versions.
Dec 29 2012
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday, December 29, 2012 23:15:34 Era Scarecrow wrote:

   Oh yes, dmd version 2.60, Windows 32bit version. I pretty sure
 it would propagate all versions.


That would be your problem. It's not fixed in 2.060. It was fixed since then. 
Use the latest from git or the current beta.

- Jonathan M Davis
Dec 29 2012
parent reply "Era Scarecrow" <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:
On Saturday, 29 December 2012 at 23:58:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 That would be your problem. It's not fixed in 2.060. It was 
 fixed since then. Use the latest from git or the current beta.


  Hmm alright, I've installed the beta. New problems are creeping 
up curiously enough. There seems to be an invisibly added pointer 
'this', which then makes a union break while using bitfields. 
This didn't break before...

  Unless I use the traits it doesn't show the problem. Any 
thoughts?

[code]
   static assert(__traits(compiles, {
     union xxx {
     int i;
     mixin("int geti()  safe const nothrow pure {return i;}void 
seti(int ii)  safe pure nothrow {i = ii;}");
     }
   }));
[/code]

output:

test.d(??): Error: static assert  (__traits(compiles,delegate 
pure nothrow  safe
  void()
{
union xxx
{
int i;
mixin("int geti()  safe const nothrow pure {return i;}void 
seti(int ii)  safe pu
re nothrow {i = ii;}");
void* this;
}
}
)) is false
Dec 29 2012
next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 04:33:54 Era Scarecrow wrote:

 On Saturday, 29 December 2012 at 23:58:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
 
 wrote:

 That would be your problem. It's not fixed in 2.060. It was
 fixed since then. Use the latest from git or the current beta.


 
   Hmm alright, I've installed the beta. New problems are creeping
 up curiously enough. There seems to be an invisibly added pointer
 'this', which then makes a union break while using bitfields.
 This didn't break before...
 
   Unless I use the traits it doesn't show the problem. Any
 thoughts?


For any bugs that you find in the beta, bring them up in the beta list and 
create bug reports for them in bugzilla: http://d.puremagic.com/issues

Looking at the code though, I'm shocked to see a function declaration in a 
union. I wouldn't have thought that that was legal. But maybe that's why the 
static assertions are failing.

- Jonathan M Davis
Dec 29 2012
next sibling parent "Era Scarecrow" <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:
On Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 03:43:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 For any bugs that you find in the beta, bring them up in the 
 beta list and create bug reports for them in bugzilla: 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues


  Will do



 Looking at the code though, I'm shocked to see a function 
 declaration in a union. I wouldn't have thought that that was 
 legal. But maybe that's why the static assertions are failing.


  Not my original idea; Actually it's part of a previous test case 
from std/format.d lines: 684-695. The original test case is 
actually to make sure that with no defaults that it doesn't try 
to set a default of throwing a 'overlapping initialization' error.

[quote]
   else
   {
     union
     {
       mixin(bitfields!(
             bool, "flDash", 1,
             bool, "flZero", 1,
             bool, "flSpace", 1,
             bool, "flPlus", 1,
             bool, "flHash", 1,
             ubyte, "", 3));
       ubyte allFlags;
     }
   }
[/quote]
Dec 29 2012
prev sibling parent "Era Scarecrow" <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:
On Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 03:43:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 For any bugs that you find in the beta, bring them up in the 
 beta list and create bug reports for them in bugzilla: 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues


  Couldn't find a previous mention of this case.

  http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9244
Dec 29 2012
prev sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 12/30/12, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 Looking at the code though, I'm shocked to see a function declaration in a
 union. I wouldn't have thought that that was legal.


It's legal in C++ and in D. I find it useful when interfacing with C++
non-POD types which have an embedded union, because it allows me to
group related properties under a union declaration (it serves only as
documentation), for example:

C++:
class Foo
{
public:
    Foo() { }

    union
    {
        int var1;
        bool var2;
    };
};

D:
///
class FooWrapper
{
    /// union property
    union
    {
         property int var1();
         property void var1(int i);

         property bool var2();
         property void var2(bool i);
    }
}
Jan 01 2013