April 11, 2011 Re: Why tuples? [was: Why tuple Re: Why are unsigned to signed conversions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to spir | spir:
> I'm trying to understand why people use tuples (outside multiple return values and variadic typetuples). Why do you prefere the above to:
Tuples are also sortable and printable on default, I think.
Bye,
bearophile
|
April 11, 2011 Re: Why are unsigned to signed conversions implicit and don't emit a warning? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to SimonM | On 04/11/2011 10:10 AM, SimonM wrote: > On 2011/04/11 09:31 AM, spir wrote: >> On 04/11/2011 02:42 AM, bearophile wrote: >>> I and Don have asked (in Bugzilla and elsewhere) to change the >>> built-in names into sbyte and ubyte, to avoid the common confusions >>> between signed and unsigned bytes in D, but Walter was deaf to this. >> >> I think a good naming scheme would be: >> >> * signed : int8 .. int64 >> * unsigned : nat8 .. nat64 >> >> (since "natural number" more or less means "unsigned integer number") >> already. What do you think? > I like the idea of removing all the different integer type names (byte, short, > int, long, cent) and replacing them with int8..int64 (I'd still prefer > uint8..uint64 though). > > Then you could use just 'int' to specify using the current system's > architecture (and hopefully replace the ugly size_t type). I also think it > makes more sense to just use 'int' when you don't really care about the > specific size of the value. Unfortunately it would break backwards compatility > so it would never make it into D's current state. Agreed. Same for uint or nat. And no implicit cast, please ;-) Denis -- _________________ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com |
April 11, 2011 Re: Why tuples? [was: Why tuple Re: Why are unsigned to signed conversions implicit...?] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
No reason. Sometimes I find a new feature in D and I like to try it out in my code in various places, to see how it looks, how it works, etc. In this case a simple struct would do. :) |
April 11, 2011 Re: Why are unsigned to signed conversions implicit and don't emit a warning? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
There are some aliases in std.stdint |
April 11, 2011 Re: Why are unsigned to signed conversions implicit and don't emit a | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to bearophile | bearophile Wrote: > - C# uses sbytes, and ubytes. Enough said. there's no ubyte in C# It has byte, and it's unsigned. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/exx3b86w.aspx |
April 11, 2011 Re: Why are unsigned to signed conversions implicit and don't emit a | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kagamin | Kagamin:
> bearophile Wrote:
>
> > - C# uses sbytes, and ubytes. Enough said.
>
> there's no ubyte in C#
> It has byte, and it's unsigned.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/exx3b86w.aspx
I was partially wrong, thank you. If you take a look it has int/unt, short/ushort, etc, but it doesn't have byte/ubyte, it has sbyte/byte. In my opinion here the naming symmetry has being broken because for most programmers bytes are unsigned. In D I have suggested sbyte/ubyte, but I accept the C# solution too.
Bye,
bearophile
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation