BCS wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>> "Fixed Bugzilla 85  (now issues error message)"
>>>
>>
>> 85: It can't be made to work, because an interface handle is different from a class handle. It doesn't work in C++, either, for the same reasons.
> 
> Anyway to get a cast? (If it is already there...)
> Somthing like:
> 
> interface I{...}
> class C : I {...}
> ...
> 
> C[] c;
> I[] i;
> 
> c = ....;
> 
> i = cast(I)c;
> 
> // same as
> 
> i.length = c.length;
> foreach(int j, C e; c)
>     i[j] = (null !is e)?e:null;
> 

You'll have to iterate over the loop and cast each element.

The new delegate syntax reminds me Smalltalk's code blocks. As far as I remember, Ruby also uses code blocks with a syntax using braces rather than bracket.

Smalltalk: collection do:[ :each | Transcript show: each asString ; cr. ].

D:
collection.do (( Object each ){ writefln ( each ); });
( a foreach would be preferrable in that case, but it's just to notice the
similarities ).

D is getting greater and greater. Thanks Walter !!!

In article <e7832r$g4h$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Mostly bug fixes.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

This post might be more useful in here, because I think it might be a bug in the latest v0.161 release, and I wanted to get Walter's attention :)

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39132

Jeremy wrote:
> This post might be more useful in here, because I think it might be a bug in the
> latest v0.161 release, and I wanted to get Walter's attention :)
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39132

I need a small, reproducible example.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Mostly bug fixes.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Nice work, Walter. Thank you.

I hoped the following code will not compile with .161

#struct A
#{
#	int x;
#}
#
#void main()
#{
#	A a;
#	with(a) {
#		int x;	// compiles without error
#	}
#}

Vladimir

"Rémy Mouëza" <Rémy_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:e79hbc$2tul$1@digitaldaemon.com...


> Smalltalk:
> collection do:[ :each | Transcript show: each asString ; cr. ].
>
> D:
> collection.do (( Object each ){ writefln ( each ); });
> ( a foreach would be preferrable in that case, but it's just to notice the
> similarities ).

That is an awesome comparison.

Vladimir wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> Nice work, Walter. Thank you.
> 
> I hoped the following code will not compile with .161
> 
> #struct A
> #{
> #    int x;
> #}
> #
> #void main()
> #{
> #    A a;
> #    with(a) {
> #        int x;    // compiles without error
> #    }
> #}

A.x is a field, not a local variable, so the shadowing rule doesn't apply.

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e79d2a$2o0c$2@digitaldaemon.com...

> There was some thought about doing that, but I'm not so sure it wouldn't be more confusing than useful.

Hehe, how true.  But hey, check it out:

void foo(void delegate() dg)
{
    writefln("before");
    dg();
}

foo =
{
    writefln("inside!");
};

A bit of property abuse..

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:12:22 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

> But hey, check it out:
> 
> void foo(void delegate() dg)
> {
>     writefln("before");
>     dg();
> }
> 
> foo =
> {
>     writefln("inside!");
> };
> 
> A bit of property abuse..

LOL ... Here is an extended test ...

import std.stdio;
void foo(void delegate() dg)
{
    writefln("before");
    dg();
    writefln("after\n");
}


void main(char[][] arg)
{
    char[] str;

    void bar()
    {
        writefln(arg[0] ~ ":" ~ str);
    }

    foo =
    {
        writefln("inside!");
    };

    foo =
    {
        writefln("again!");
    };

    foo( {writefln("last time");} );

    str = "not really";
    foo(&bar);
    str = "RUBBISH";
    foo = &bar;
}

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"
21/06/2006 12:40:50 PM

BCS wrote:
> Chris Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:03:08 -0400, Walter Bright  <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow, that new literal delegate syntax is crazy but I like it.
>>
> [...]
> 
> Ohhhh fun!! Try finding the bug in this one (ignore the hints).

-snip-

It seems to work just fine here? Prints 2, exactly what I expected :)

L.