Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:31:16 -0700, BCS wrote:
>>
>>> How do you get DMD to let you use depreciated "things"? I know it's in there somewhere but I can't seem to find the switch.
>>
>> Use the "-d" switch. Documented under "Tools / DMD D Compiler"
> 
> And under the dmd command line help. BCS, that was hard to miss. *g*
> 

I'm blind, BLIND I TELL YOU!!  :-p



"The easy way to find the answer to a question is ask someone who knows. Usually you will figure it out yourself about half a second before they stop smirking and tell you." --B... er Anon.

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

WOW! (For everything) :)

Walter Bright wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e7832r$g4h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>
>> Oh man, those delegate literals look like it would be very possible to make interesting "pseudo-structures," that is, fake language constructs.  So if you were to define a function as
>>
>> void func(void delegate() dg);
>>
>> That is, the last parameter is a void delegate(), it would be an interesting bit of syntactic sugar to be able to write
>>
>> func
>> {
>>     writefln("foo");
>> }
>>
>> Not sure what utility this would present, but hey! 
> 
> There was some thought about doing that, but I'm not so sure it wouldn't be more confusing than useful.

With the new delegate syntax, and a very simple function one can finally replace the annoying and common case where a for-loop until now still has to be used:

void repeat(Int,Delegate)(Int n, Delegate d) {
	static assert(is(Int:int),"Argument 1 to repeat must be int");
	for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
		d();
}

The implementation could also contain:
static if (NumberOfArgs!(Delegate) == 1)
  d(i);

The use is:

repeat(10, { something(); });

And the multi-line version becomes:

repeat(10, {
  something();
  somethingElse();
});

Which at least makes me wish for Jarretts suggested short form:

repeat(10) {
  something();
  somethingElse();
}

But the implications of having such power is almost scary... :)

/Oskar

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e7832r$g4h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Mostly bug fixes.
>>
>>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> 
> Oh man, those delegate literals look like it would be very possible to make interesting "pseudo-structures," that is, fake language constructs.  So if you were to define a function as
> 
> void func(void delegate() dg);
> 
> That is, the last parameter is a void delegate(), it would be an interesting bit of syntactic sugar to be able to write
> 
> func
> {
>     writefln("foo");
> }
> 
> Not sure what utility this would present, but hey! 
> 
> 

Deja Vu?

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/24770.html

hehe.

"David Medlock" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:e818mk$fcj$2@digitaldaemon.com...

> Deja Vu?
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/24770.html
>
> hehe.

Heh, I thought I remembered that!

Oskar Linde wrote:
> Which at least makes me wish for Jarretts suggested short form:
> 
> repeat(10) {
>   something();
>   somethingElse();
> }


But that's exactly what foreach does, isn't it? Would be cool if that construct would be made available to user functions!

L.

Oskar Linde wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e7832r$g4h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>>
>>> Oh man, those delegate literals look like it would be very possible to make interesting "pseudo-structures," that is, fake language constructs.  So if you were to define a function as
>>>
>>> void func(void delegate() dg);
>>>
>>> That is, the last parameter is a void delegate(), it would be an interesting bit of syntactic sugar to be able to write
>>>
>>> func
>>> {
>>>     writefln("foo");
>>> }
>>>
>>> Not sure what utility this would present, but hey! 
>>
>> There was some thought about doing that, but I'm not so sure it wouldn't be more confusing than useful.
> 
> With the new delegate syntax, and a very simple function one can finally replace the annoying and common case where a for-loop until now still has to be used:
> 
> void repeat(Int,Delegate)(Int n, Delegate d) {
>     static assert(is(Int:int),"Argument 1 to repeat must be int");
>     for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
>         d();
> }
> 
> The implementation could also contain:
> static if (NumberOfArgs!(Delegate) == 1)
>   d(i);
> 
> The use is:
> 
> repeat(10, { something(); });
> 
> And the multi-line version becomes:
> 
> repeat(10, {
>   something();
>   somethingElse();
> });
> 
> Which at least makes me wish for Jarretts suggested short form:
> 
> repeat(10) {
>   something();
>   somethingElse();
> }
> 
> But the implications of having such power is almost scary... :)
> 
> /Oskar

That's too much power for us puny mortals! :P

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D