In article <cbb9sq$22qv$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>The big change here is the revamping of the typeinfo system, and the addition of typesafe variadic functions. At last, we can now write a proper successor to printf!
>
>Doing that is next on my list, as well as addressing the large backlog of phobos work and compiler bugs.
>
>Barring a very, very, compelling case, this is it for 1.0 language features. There are a lot more things I want to do, but this has got to be enough for 1.0.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

This looks great!  A few questions:

1. Exactly how portable is _argptr?  Can we rely on the example working (i.e.
the += int.size operations)?  I.e. if va_arg is better, what does _argptr
provide?  (or is one in terms of the other?)

2. Is the example for FOO incorrect?  Does this really skip over the class, or a
pointer to the class, or what?
_argptr += FOO.sizeof;

3. Is there documentation for TypeInfo?

Kevin

Matthew wrote:

> fwiw, my (wasted) vote is that the bit type dies

Agreed. Nice idea, but not quite the thing in real life. Kill bit, and replace with a library implementation in Phobos. There, I've said my bit, and shall forever stay silent.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen

"Kevin Bealer" <Kevin_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbctk0$1jcn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 1. Exactly how portable is _argptr?  Can we rely on the example working
(i.e.
> the += int.size operations)?  I.e. if va_arg is better, what does _argptr
> provide?  (or is one in terms of the other?)

va_arg handles stack alignment issues, so you should do that instead of incrementing _argptr yourself.

> 2. Is the example for FOO incorrect?  Does this really skip over the
class, or a
> pointer to the class, or what?
> _argptr += FOO.sizeof;

FOO.sizeof is the size of a reference to a FOO object. The example is correct.

> 3. Is there documentation for TypeInfo?

It's in object.d in Phobos <g>.

"Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec@gmx.de> wrote in message news:cbbpce$2r7c$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Nice to see that multiple indices have already found their way into the language! Thanks!
>

Not only multiple, but also variable number of indexes!!

class IndexingClass
{
 int opIndex(...)
 {
  return 133;
 }
}

And this works great! This is what i call a consistency in a language :)

> There is a small typo in the changelog:
>         http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new093
> In the second point, it should 'opIndexAssign' instead of 'opIndexArray'
>
> B.t.w: Maybe it should be noted very clearly that the changes may break existing code without clear warning: If you used the now deprecated opIndex(idx,value) for overloading the assignment, the compiler will complain only on usage of 'A[i] = b;' which might be very confusing to anyone who did not read the changelog carefully.
>
>
>
>
> Walter wrote:
>
> > The big change here is the revamping of the typeinfo system, and the addition of typesafe variadic functions. At last, we can now write a proper successor to printf!
> >
> > Doing that is next on my list, as well as addressing the large backlog
of
> > phobos work and compiler bugs.
> >
> > Barring a very, very, compelling case, this is it for 1.0 language features. There are a lot more things I want to do, but this has got to
be
> > enough for 1.0.
> >
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>

In article <cbcu4h$1k77$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Kevin Bealer" <Kevin_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbctk0$1jcn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> 1. Exactly how portable is _argptr?  Can we rely on the example working
>(i.e.
>> the += int.size operations)?  I.e. if va_arg is better, what does _argptr
>> provide?  (or is one in terms of the other?)
>
>va_arg handles stack alignment issues, so you should do that instead of incrementing _argptr yourself.
>
>> 2. Is the example for FOO incorrect?  Does this really skip over the
>class, or a
>> pointer to the class, or what?
>> _argptr += FOO.sizeof;
>
>FOO.sizeof is the size of a reference to a FOO object. The example is correct.
>
>> 3. Is there documentation for TypeInfo?
>
>It's in object.d in Phobos <g>.

Well the code matches the documentation anyway <g>.

Kevin

In article <cbc8jd$hbi$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Hauke Duden says...

>lots of good stuff.

Yeah, I guess I can't argue with any of that.


>Peter Wood suggested in another post to instead create a new property with a different name. What do you think about that? Something like "maxValid" perhaps?

Well, it's possible, but on the whole I think I'd rather drop the idea altogether. The maximum Unicode codepoint is a manifest constant which could simply appear in an include file somewhere. (Er, I meant module). And the maximum legal value in a char is something you wouldn't ever really need to know unless you were writing UTF-8 translation routines (since anything else can rely on std.utf).

So - hey - it was a thought, but probably in the end not a very good one. I withdraw the suggestion.

Arcane Jill

"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn@lundolsen.net> wrote in message news:cbcu2i$1k0s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
> > fwiw, my (wasted) vote is that the bit type dies
> Agreed. Nice idea, but not quite the thing in real life. Kill bit, and replace with a library implementation in Phobos. There, I've said my bit, and shall forever stay silent.

A bit drastic, don't you think?

"Kevin" <Kevin_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbd0cm$1oc5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <cbcu4h$1k77$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
> >> 3. Is there documentation for TypeInfo?
> >It's in object.d in Phobos <g>.
> Well the code matches the documentation anyway <g>.

"Use the source, Luke" -- Obi Bin Coding

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:cbb9sq$22qv$1@digitaldaemon.com
| The big change here is the revamping of the typeinfo system, and the
| addition of typesafe variadic functions. At last, we can now write a
proper
| successor to printf!
|
| Doing that is next on my list, as well as addressing the large backlog of
| phobos work and compiler bugs.
|
| Barring a very, very, compelling case, this is it for 1.0 language
features.
| There are a lot more things I want to do, but this has got to be enough
for
| 1.0.
|
| http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

While making dmgc.lib, I found this error ".size property is deprecated, use .sizeof" here:

testgc.d(304)
gc.d(43)
gcx.d(170)
gcx.d(632)
gcx.d(767)
gcx.d(865)
gcx.d(868)
gcx.d(887)
gcx.d(906)
gcx.d(909)
gcx.d(930)
gcx.d(1169)
gcx.d(1177)
gcx.d(1187)
gcx.d(1199)
gcx.d(2020)
gcx.d(2025)
gcbits.d(38)
gcbits.d(46)
gcbits.d(118)
gcbits.d(128)

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

I don't know if this happened before, but now it does.

--
[file t\a\m1.d]
module t.a.m1;

[file t\a\m2.d]
module t.a.m2;
import t.a.m1;
--

dmd -c m2
Error: Error reading file 't\a\m1.d'

(also notice no file or line number info)

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal