November 30, 2007
I had some questions about the std.intrinsic functions:

Is it possible to do bt, bts and btr operations on ulongs as is already possible on uints?

Why do the intrinsic operations not return bool, instead of 0 and -1?


I also have a question about structs.

I want to do this, but this obviously doesn't work:

struct foo(int var)
{
    int[var] x;
}

struct bar
{
    foo[4] zeb(10);
}

Thanks.


November 30, 2007
Jaheera wrote:
> 
> I also have a question about structs.
> 
> I want to do this, but this obviously doesn't work:
> 
> struct foo(int var)
> {
>     int[var] x;
> }
> 
> struct bar
> {
>     foo[4] zeb(10);
> }
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> 

I /think/ what you want is this:

struct foo(int var)
{
  int[var] x; // static array of 'var' elements
}

struct bar
{
  /* static array of 4 elements containing foos that contain static arrays of 10 elements. */
  foo!(10)[4] zeb;
}

I'm sorry I don't know if I'm actually helping.  I don't entirely understand the question.
November 30, 2007
"Chad J" <gamerChad@_spamIsBad_gmail.com> wrote in message news:fipmho$ivc$1@digitalmars.com...
> Jaheera wrote:
>>
>> I also have a question about structs.
>>
>> I want to do this, but this obviously doesn't work:
>>
>> struct foo(int var)
>> {
>>     int[var] x;
>> }
>>
>> struct bar
>> {
>>     foo[4] zeb(10);
>> }
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> I /think/ what you want is this:
>
> struct foo(int var)
> {
>   int[var] x; // static array of 'var' elements
> }
>
> struct bar
> {
>   /* static array of 4 elements containing foos that contain static arrays
> of 10 elements. */
>   foo!(10)[4] zeb;
> }
>
> I'm sorry I don't know if I'm actually helping.  I don't entirely understand the question.

Actually you understood it perfectly, this appears to be exactly what i needed, thanks!


December 03, 2007
Jaheera wrote:
> I had some questions about the std.intrinsic functions:
> 
> Is it possible to do bt, bts and btr operations on ulongs as is already possible on uints?

No.  Though I suppose there's an outside chance we will get this feature once DMD can compile 64-bit code.

> Why do the intrinsic operations not return bool, instead of 0 and -1?

Walter has historically had an aversion to bool return values (opEquals, for example) because he felt that they were inefficient.  I believe someone once demonstrated that this isn't actually true, but I'll be darned if I can find the thread.


Sean
December 03, 2007
Sean Kelly wrote:
> Jaheera wrote:
>> I had some questions about the std.intrinsic functions:
>>
>> Is it possible to do bt, bts and btr operations on ulongs as is already possible on uints?
> 
> No.  Though I suppose there's an outside chance we will get this feature once DMD can compile 64-bit code.
> 
>> Why do the intrinsic operations not return bool, instead of 0 and -1?
> 
> Walter has historically had an aversion to bool return values (opEquals, for example) because he felt that they were inefficient.  I believe someone once demonstrated that this isn't actually true, but I'll be darned if I can find the thread.
> 
> 
> Sean

I think the thread is linked to from one of the Doc comments pages. Probably the one for wherever opEquals and opCmp are described.

--bb
December 03, 2007
Bill Baxter wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Jaheera wrote:
>>> I had some questions about the std.intrinsic functions:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to do bt, bts and btr operations on ulongs as is already possible on uints?
>>
>> No.  Though I suppose there's an outside chance we will get this feature once DMD can compile 64-bit code.
>>
>>> Why do the intrinsic operations not return bool, instead of 0 and -1?
>>
>> Walter has historically had an aversion to bool return values (opEquals, for example) because he felt that they were inefficient.  I believe someone once demonstrated that this isn't actually true, but I'll be darned if I can find the thread.
> 
> I think the thread is linked to from one of the Doc comments pages. Probably the one for wherever opEquals and opCmp are described.

You're right.  I'm pretty sure it was this thread/comment.  I could have sworn that Walter had replied to the one I was thinking of, but I must be misremembering:

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.bugs&article_id=8005


Sean
December 06, 2007
"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:fj201d$261a$1@digitalmars.com...
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> Jaheera wrote:
>>>> I had some questions about the std.intrinsic functions:
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible to do bt, bts and btr operations on ulongs as is already possible on uints?
>>>
>>> No.  Though I suppose there's an outside chance we will get this feature once DMD can compile 64-bit code.
>>>
>>>> Why do the intrinsic operations not return bool, instead of 0 and -1?
>>>
>>> Walter has historically had an aversion to bool return values (opEquals, for example) because he felt that they were inefficient.  I believe someone once demonstrated that this isn't actually true, but I'll be darned if I can find the thread.
>>
>> I think the thread is linked to from one of the Doc comments pages. Probably the one for wherever opEquals and opCmp are described.
>
> You're right.  I'm pretty sure it was this thread/comment.  I could have sworn that Walter had replied to the one I was thinking of, but I must be misremembering:
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.bugs&article_id=8005
>
>
> Sean

I see. Thanks for the clarification


Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home