D - Documentation Errata
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= (10/10) Feb 23 2004 On the arrays page, a static array is shown as being declared like any
- Walter (4/12) Feb 23 2004 The static keyword isn't necessary to do static arrays.
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= (11/21) Feb 24 2004 Why doesn't this work?:
- Luke D (5/5) Feb 24 2004 Sorry, didn't feel like starting another thread for documentation errors...
- larry cowan (15/20) Feb 24 2004 Not sure what you mean, but I found:
- Luke D (3/40) Feb 24 2004 Ah, you know what, I was really tired when I looked at it, and it just
- Stewart Gordon (28/44) Feb 26 2004 No, that would cause ambiguity
On the arrays page, a static array is shown as being declared like any
dynamic array, but with a number of elements in the square brackets.
AFAIK you need to use the 'static' keyword to actually declare a static
array. This is done throughout the entire page.
Also, under 'Array Operations':
int[] def = { 1, 2, 3 }; // dynamic array of 3 ints
This should be
int[] def = [1, 2, 3]; // dynamic array of 3 ints
Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Feb 23 2004
"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message news:c1dl3u$2kmb$1 digitaldaemon.com...On the arrays page, a static array is shown as being declared like any dynamic array, but with a number of elements in the square brackets. AFAIK you need to use the 'static' keyword to actually declare a static array. This is done throughout the entire page.The static keyword isn't necessary to do static arrays.Also, under 'Array Operations': int[] def = { 1, 2, 3 }; // dynamic array of 3 ints This should be int[] def = [1, 2, 3]; // dynamic array of 3 intsGood catch. Thanks!
Feb 23 2004
Walter wrote:"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message news:c1dl3u$2kmb$1 digitaldaemon.com...Why doesn't this work?: // begin test.d int main(char[][] args) { ubyte[3] test = [2, 13, 9]; return 0; } // end test.d G:\Docs\Sigbjørn>dmd test.d test.d(3): variable test is not a static and cannot have static initializerOn the arrays page, a static array is shown as being declared like any dynamic array, but with a number of elements in the square brackets. AFAIK you need to use the 'static' keyword to actually declare a static array. This is done throughout the entire page.The static keyword isn't necessary to do static arrays.
Feb 24 2004
Vathix <vathix dprogramming.com> Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:Walter wrote:I don't think initializing local arrays/structs like that is implemented yet. -- Christopher E. Miller www.dprogramming.com irc.dprogramming.com #D"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message news:c1dl3u$2kmb$1 digitaldaemon.com...Why doesn't this work?: // begin test.d int main(char[][] args) { ubyte[3] test = [2, 13, 9]; return 0; } // end test.d G:\Docs\Sigbjørn>dmd test.d test.d(3): variable test is not a static and cannot have static initializerOn the arrays page, a static array is shown as being declared like any dynamic array, but with a number of elements in the square brackets. AFAIK you need to use the 'static' keyword to actually declare a static array. This is done throughout the entire page.The static keyword isn't necessary to do static arrays.
Feb 24 2004
"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message news:c1fevg$2s1e$1 digitaldaemon.com...Walter wrote:initializer I see what you mean now. I had assumed you'd meant at global level, rather than at local level."Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message news:c1dl3u$2kmb$1 digitaldaemon.com...Why doesn't this work?: // begin test.d int main(char[][] args) { ubyte[3] test = [2, 13, 9]; return 0; } // end test.d G:\Docs\Sigbjørn>dmd test.d test.d(3): variable test is not a static and cannot have staticOn the arrays page, a static array is shown as being declared like any dynamic array, but with a number of elements in the square brackets. AFAIK you need to use the 'static' keyword to actually declare a static array. This is done throughout the entire page.The static keyword isn't necessary to do static arrays.
Feb 24 2004
Sorry, didn't feel like starting another thread for documentation errors since this is a pretty minor one, but the names of the expressions on the expression page are messed up. Sorry if you already know this, it seems like a pretty easy one to catch. Luke D
Feb 24 2004
Not sure what you mean, but I found: 1. ConditionalExpression: OrOrExpression OrOrExpression ? Expression : ConditionalExpression should be OrOrExpression ? Expression : Expression , I think. 2. UnaryExpression: seems to allow y = ++ ++ -- ++ ++ -- -- x; really? 3. PostfixExpression: has similar problems. 4. AssertExpression: Is 'assert(a==b , c==d, e!=f);' a valid meaningful statement? Compiler doesn't seem to like it. 5. ArgumentList: seems to be identical to 'Expression' in effect. 6. NewExpression: 'BasicType' doesn't seem to be defined. Compiler will not accept 'int' in that context. ..and that's just on a quick run-thru. In article <c1goi6$26o8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Luke D says...Sorry, didn't feel like starting another thread for documentation errors since this is a pretty minor one, but the names of the expressions on the expression page are messed up. Sorry if you already know this, it seems like a pretty easy one to catch. Luke D
Feb 24 2004
Ah, you know what, I was really tired when I looked at it, and it just looked wrong to me. It makes sense now. larry cowan wrote:Not sure what you mean, but I found: 1. ConditionalExpression: OrOrExpression OrOrExpression ? Expression : ConditionalExpression should be OrOrExpression ? Expression : Expression , I think. 2. UnaryExpression: seems to allow y = ++ ++ -- ++ ++ -- -- x; really? 3. PostfixExpression: has similar problems. 4. AssertExpression: Is 'assert(a==b , c==d, e!=f);' a valid meaningful statement? Compiler doesn't seem to like it. 5. ArgumentList: seems to be identical to 'Expression' in effect. 6. NewExpression: 'BasicType' doesn't seem to be defined. Compiler will not accept 'int' in that context. ..and that's just on a quick run-thru. In article <c1goi6$26o8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Luke D says...Sorry, didn't feel like starting another thread for documentation errors since this is a pretty minor one, but the names of the expressions on the expression page are messed up. Sorry if you already know this, it seems like a pretty easy one to catch. Luke D
Feb 24 2004
larry cowan wrote:Not sure what you mean, but I found: 1. ConditionalExpression: OrOrExpression OrOrExpression ? Expression : ConditionalExpression should be OrOrExpression ? Expression : Expression , I think.No, that would cause ambiguity qwert ? yuiop : asdfg = hjkl Is this (qwert ? yuiop : asdfg) = hjkl or qwert ? yuiop : (asdfg = hjkl) ?2. UnaryExpression: seems to allow y = ++ ++ -- ++ ++ -- -- x; really?Yes, at the syntactic level, as opposed to the semantic.3. PostfixExpression: has similar problems.And similar solutions. There's no need to complicate the syntax just to catch errors that'll be caught during the semantic analysis, and for which syntax parsing isn't a general solution anyway.4. AssertExpression: Is 'assert(a==b , c==d, e!=f);' a valid meaningful statement? Compiler doesn't seem to like it.You're right, that ought to be valid. Presumably comma expressions are _semantically_ forbidden in asserts, as are assignments. If this is the case, there's actually nothing to lose by having defined AssertExpression: assert ( ConditionalExpression ) but again, it isn't a general solution.5. ArgumentList: seems to be identical to 'Expression' in effect.No it isn't. Read the individual subsections of the Expressions page explaining the semantics of each form.6. NewExpression: 'BasicType' doesn't seem to be defined. Compiler will not accept 'int' in that context.<snip top of upside-down reply> OK, so maybe you really have caught one.... Stewart. -- My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Feb 26 2004