On Friday, 21 April 2017 at 19:48:53 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
> On Friday, 21 April 2017 at 12:37:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>
>> And I should add (for anyone paying attention), this is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for more of on the D Blog. Submissions welcome :-)
>
> This, and the generally positive feedback on r and HN are quite motivating. :)
> I have some ideas for more articles but being a non-native English speaker I need a lot of time to make the text look at least understandable, so I usually give up quickly and move on to play with code instead. :)

I'm a native speaker, but I hate writing with a passion, but I found the D community are very forthcoming with suggestions and improvements w.r.t both code and language typos and structure issues.

On Friday, 21 April 2017 at 13:10:43 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 at 18:02:46 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
>> [2] https://epi.github.io/2017/03/18/less_fun.html
>
> BTW in your D foreach, you could also have done `switch`
>
>   void trigger(string event) {
>     switch(event) {
>       foreach (i, e; events) {
>         case e:
>           foreach (c; callbacks_[i])
>             c();
>           return;
>       }
>       default:
>            assert(false, "trying to trigger an unknown event: " ~ event);
>     }
>   }
>
>
> And the compiler+runtime can optimize that into a binary search when it gets larger automatically.

Doesn't the latest compiler complain with a depreciation that i/e initialization is being skipped?

On 4/23/17 12:22 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Friday, 21 April 2017 at 13:10:43 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 at 18:02:46 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
>>> [2] https://epi.github.io/2017/03/18/less_fun.html
>>
>> BTW in your D foreach, you could also have done `switch`
>>
>>   void trigger(string event) {
>>     switch(event) {
>>       foreach (i, e; events) {
>>         case e:
>>           foreach (c; callbacks_[i])
>>             c();
>>           return;
>>       }
>>       default:
>>            assert(false, "trying to trigger an unknown event: " ~ event);
>>     }
>>   }
>>
>>
>> And the compiler+runtime can optimize that into a binary search when
>> it gets larger automatically.
>
> Doesn't the latest compiler complain with a depreciation that i/e
> initialization is being skipped?

Yep, but it's just a warning. A really annoying warning. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16521 has more details. static foreach + switch can be bad if you ref the elements of the tuple. The "correct" thing to do is:

foreach(i, _unused; someTuple)
{
    // use someTuple[i] instead of _unused
}

You will still get the warning though.

-Steve

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 07:53:49 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>
> OT but is there any benefit to identify events with strings? As long as you use compile time only events I'd prefer a syntax as in https://github.com/WebFreak001/EventSystem
>
> (one benefit is that it's 100% IDE autocomplete compatible)
>
> I guess if you want runtime registration of events identifying by name is useful. But then you also somehow have to encode the parameter types to make the whole thing safe...

I agree. Personally, I'd probably also start with something like WebFreak001's ES and only think about how to add run-time dispatch later if I absolutely need it.