On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:12:16 +0900, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> bearophile wrote:
>> BCS Wrote:
>>> Cool template function literals sounds interesting
>>  May I have one example of them?
>> I am looking in the docs, but I am not finding anything...
>
> void foo(alias f)()
> {
>      f(3, 4);
> }
>
> foo!((x,y){return x * y;))();

void foo(alias f)()
{
    writefln(f(3, 4));
}
foo!((x,y){ return x * y; })();

This code doesn't work(compile error). But, following code works.

void bar(alias f)()
{
    writefln(f("bar"));
}
bar!((str) { return str; })();

Is this a bug?

-- 
tama <repeatedly@gmail.com>
http://profile.livedoor.com/repeatedly/
$B%a%s%P!<Jg=8Cf(B
http://tpf.techtalk.jp/

tama:
> void foo(alias f)()
> {
>      writefln(f(3, 4));
> }
> foo!((x,y){ return x * y; })();
> 
> This code doesn't work(compile error).

To me the following works:

import std.stdio: writeln;
void foo(alias f)() {
     writeln(f(3, 4));
}
void main() {
    foo!((x,y){ return x * y; })();
}

Bye,
bearophile

bearophile wrote:
> tama:
>> void foo(alias f)()
>> {
>>      writefln(f(3, 4));
>> }
>> foo!((x,y){ return x * y; })();
>>
>> This code doesn't work(compile error).
>
> To me the following works:
>
> import std.stdio: writeln;
> void foo(alias f)() {
>      writeln(f(3, 4));
> }
> void main() {
>     foo!((x,y){ return x * y; })();
> }
I see.

I tested following code.

writefln(3 * 4);

This code doesn't work in the first place:-<
Sorry, it didn't matter.

-- 
tama <repeatedly@gmail.com>
http://profile.livedoor.com/repeatedly/
$B%a%s%P!<Jg=8Cf(B
http://tpf.techtalk.jp/

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:58:38 +0400, tama <repeatedly@gmail.com> wrote:

> bearophile wrote:
>> tama:
>>> void foo(alias f)()
>>> {
>>>      writefln(f(3, 4));
>>> }
>>> foo!((x,y){ return x * y; })();
>>>
>>> This code doesn't work(compile error).
>>
>> To me the following works:
>>
>> import std.stdio: writeln;
>> void foo(alias f)() {
>>      writeln(f(3, 4));
>> }
>> void main() {
>>     foo!((x,y){ return x * y; })();
>> }
> I see.
>
> I tested following code.
>
> writefln(3 * 4);
>
> This code doesn't work in the first place:-<
> Sorry, it didn't matter.
>

writefln now expects a string as a first argument.
Use writeln() if you need no formattings, it is both faster and safer.

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> writefln now expects a string as a first argument.
> Use writeln() if you need no formattings, it is both faster and safer.
To one's shame, I didn't know detailed writef/writefln spec.
I checked D2 changelog and founded it at version 2.006 and 2.029.

Thanks!

-- 
tama <repeatedly@gmail.com>
http://profile.livedoor.com/repeatedly/
$B%a%s%P!<Jg=8Cf(B
http://tpf.techtalk.jp/

Using D1 feels especially retarded today :(

> This is a major revision to Phobos, including Andrei's revolutionary new range support.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.029.zip

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> This is a major revision to Phobos, including Andrei's revolutionary new range support.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.029.zip

The documentation for completeSort in std.algorithm says:

   Performs O(n * log(n)) (best case)
         to O(n * log(n)) (worst-case) evaluations of swap.

I wonder what it should be.

Georg Wrede wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> This is a major revision to Phobos, including Andrei's revolutionary new range support.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.029.zip
> 
> The documentation for completeSort in std.algorithm says:
> 
>    Performs O(n * log(n)) (best case)
>          to O(n * log(n)) (worst-case) evaluations of swap.
> 
> I wonder what it should be.

Sorry, what was I thinking? I think (without being sure) that the
complexity of completeSort is O(rhs.length * log(t)) in the
best case, and O(t * log(t)) in the worst case, where t = lhs.length +
rhs.length.


Andrei

Saaa wrote:
> Using D1 feels especially retarded today :(

Don't cry now. :-)
Soon you'll be using D2 for work, and cry when you see the D3 change log...

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a major revision to Phobos, including Andrei's revolutionary new range support.
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.029.zip
>>
>> The documentation for completeSort in std.algorithm says:
>>
>>    Performs O(n * log(n)) (best case)
>>          to O(n * log(n)) (worst-case) evaluations of swap.
>>
>> I wonder what it should be.
> 
> Sorry, what was I thinking? I think (without being sure) that the
> complexity of completeSort is O(rhs.length * log(t)) in the
> best case, and O(t * log(t)) in the worst case, where t = lhs.length +
> rhs.length.

I revise that. Best case, there's temporary memory to allocate and then the complexity is that of sorting rhs plus merge lhs and rhs using extra memory. That is O(lhs.length + rhs.length * log(rhs.length)).

Worst case, there's no temporary memory available so we need to sort the whole thing. That means O((lhs.length + rhs.length) * log(rhs.length + rhs.length)).

I committed the fixed module.


Andrei