Yes yes, I will use the ref... is more safer!

I will try to re-create my logic...
btw, how is the best way to "reinterpret" this ??:

map<string, Address> syms;

and:
vector<pair<DWORD, Address>> values;
vector<pair<DWORD, shared_ptr<DWORD>>> addrs;

On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 14:55:36 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Alexandre:
>
>> as rc is better for managing scarce resources like file handles.
>
> File instances are ref counted in D. Is this useful for you?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Alexandre:

> map<string, Address> syms;

If you don't need the key ordering then use a built-in associative array:

Address[string] syms;

Otherwise use a RedBlackTree from std.container.


> vector<pair<DWORD, Address>> values;
> vector<pair<DWORD, shared_ptr<DWORD>>> addrs;

Tuple!(DWORD, Address)[] values;
Tuple!(DWORD, DWORD*)[] addrs;

Tuple and tuple are in std.typecons.

Bye,
bearophile

On 07/15/2014 07:40 AM, Alexandre wrote:

> I have this struct:

I think many short discussion threads are more efficient than a single long thread. Many different C++ and D concepts are making this thread difficult to follow for me. :)

Ali

On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 16:04:26 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Alexandre:
>
>> map<string, Address> syms;
>
> If you don't need the key ordering then use a built-in associative array:
>
> Address[string] syms;
>
> Otherwise use a RedBlackTree from std.container.
>
>
>> vector<pair<DWORD, Address>> values;
>> vector<pair<DWORD, shared_ptr<DWORD>>> addrs;
>
> Tuple!(DWORD, Address)[] values;
> Tuple!(DWORD, DWORD*)[] addrs;
>
> Tuple and tuple are in std.typecons.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

For `Tuple!(DWORD, DWORD*)[] addrs;`, DWORD* is not same as shared_ptr<DWORD>. It's important to keep that in mind.

Meta:

> For `Tuple!(DWORD, DWORD*)[] addrs;`, DWORD* is not same as shared_ptr<DWORD>. It's important to keep that in mind.

OK. How do you suggest to translate it in D?

Bye,
bearophile

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 13:40:20 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Meta:
>
>> For `Tuple!(DWORD, DWORD*)[] addrs;`, DWORD* is not same as shared_ptr<DWORD>. It's important to keep that in mind.
>
> OK. How do you suggest to translate it in D?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

I don't know. I just wanted to make sure OP knew that raw pointers in D are not analogous to C++ shared_ptr.