Does it work on module-scope globals too?

align(1):
struct foo { byte a,b; }
struct bar { char c,d; }

Sean

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:adli7a$16m1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:adlgtt$15fq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > I'm translating DirectX 8 to D and ran into some #pragma pack to control struct member alignment.  Is there any equivalent for this in DMD? (even
> if
> > it's not "standard" D)
>
> Standartized D equivalent is the align() attribute. It can be applied both to entire structures, and to their parts:
>
>     align(1) struct foo    // align entire struct on bytes boundaries
>     {
>         byte a;
>         int b;
>     }
>
>     struct bar
>     {
>     align(2):    // align on word boundaries from now on
>         byte a;
>         int b;
>     align(4):    // align on dword boundaries from now on
>         short c;
>         long d;
>     }
>
>

"Jonathan Andrew" <jon@ece.arizona.edu> wrote in message news:3CFE7DA9.7050308@ece.arizona.edu...

> How difficult do you think it would be to package up those functions into a 'socket' or 'connection' class? I'm not much of an OO fan myself,

socket.d does exactly this.

> but net programming always seemed like an appropriate place for it. Maybe we could have a seperate class-based interface called net.d that is slightly higher-level than socket.d? Just a thought...

You mean like a set of clients and servers for various protocols? It could be done...

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:admqpu$2d6i$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> Does it work on module-scope globals too?
>
> align(1):
> struct foo { byte a,b; }
> struct bar { char c,d; }

Not sure. I think so (since it's an attribute like all others), but
it should be tested.

Pavel Minayev wrote:

> "Jonathan Andrew" <jon@ece.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CFE7DA9.7050308@ece.arizona.edu...
> 
> 
>>How difficult do you think it would be to package up those functions
>>into a 'socket' or 'connection' class? I'm not much of an OO fan myself,
>>
> 
> socket.d does exactly this.
> 


Ah, I hadn't yet had a chance to look at it, and assumed from your
earlier comments that it was just wrappers to make it easier to
call the socket function from a D program, instead of putting
everything in nice classes.
I'm glad you did it the way you did though, I like it. Now if I can just
get some time to play with it!


> 
>>but net programming always seemed like an appropriate place for it.
>>Maybe we could have a seperate class-based interface called net.d that
>>is slightly higher-level than socket.d? Just a thought...
>>
> 
> You mean like a set of clients and servers for various protocols?
> It could be done...
> 

Well, to be honest I was just thinking of what you have already done with

socket.d, but a set of classes for different protocols would be very
cool, have some base connection class and then have things like
FTPConnection, HTTPConnection, etc... all derived from that class. I
don't think it would belong in Phobos though.
-Jon