https://github.com/opendlang/d/issues/4

I added the labels good first issue and help wanted; therefore its a good first issue and I'm good at open source and communicating

Id like help, most of the people in opend are specifically generic-code non-believers and its allot of code I want to get just werk`n.

If anyone wants to rant discussions should happen here: https://github.com/orgs/opendlang/discussions/46

Gists, stealing code from projects, I dont care about the formality of holy git, style, or even lawyers opinions on if russia is gnu compliment.

I view the following as the important factors for making programming ever actually good:

1. data structures
2. algorithm (including searching algorithms, experimenting with apis)
3. better printf debugging
4. sane serialization

On Friday, 27 December 2024 at 21:15:40 UTC, monkyyy wrote:

Still want help

https://github.com/opendlang/d/blob/main/source/odc/algorthims.d

will take criticism from the usual suspects

On Saturday, 11 January 2025 at 05:12:02 UTC, monkyyy wrote:

Nice filename, anyway.

On Saturday, 11 January 2025 at 05:12:02 UTC, monkyyy wrote:

Please make popFront and popBack actually return popped values thanks

On Sunday, 12 January 2025 at 19:25:37 UTC, Anton Pastukhov wrote:

Even if I liked that idea, wouldnt that break phoboes compatibility?

On Sunday, 12 January 2025 at 20:40:06 UTC, monkyyy wrote:

My uninformed opinion is that shouldn't cause too much trouble? popFront and popBack currently return void, so it's safe to assume there are no places in the existing code that expect a return value, so it's just going to be discarded. I could be terribly wrong ofc

On Monday, 13 January 2025 at 12:26:07 UTC, Anton Pastukhov wrote:

It would break this mini implementation of map:

private struct MapResult(alias func, R)
{
    R r;
    auto front() => func(r.front);
    bool empty() => r.empty;
    void popFront() => r.popFront();
}

On Monday, 13 January 2025 at 12:26:07 UTC, Anton Pastukhov wrote:

You can do this:

void fn1(){}
void fn2(){ return fn1(); }

On Monday, 13 January 2025 at 12:26:07 UTC, Anton Pastukhov wrote:

I believe phoboes and "contract programming" to break code that should otherwise work(I know of spefic examples where coping and pasting the function without the contract compiles)

Its possible to detect differences here and the real code range api that actually being used by phoebes is actually oo-y

If you care about the api I could add some variant of this function:

auto ref next(R)(R r){
  auto e=&(r.front);
  r.popFront;
  return *e;
}

(would need to test several situation to find version that actually works with both ref and nonref front)