31-Jan-2013 23:48, H. S. Teoh пишет:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:27:57PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
30-Jan-2013 01:52, Dmitry Olshansky пишет:
Recap:
During a couple of rounds of the informal review new std.uni had its
docs happily destroyed, and later re-written based on the feedback.
[snip]
- Squeezed extra 31Kb slack from object-file size (32 bits, more on
64). Now all of the packed tables occupy around 350Kb (32bits) and
If you happen to know some tricks to reduce object file size (and in
turn the executable size), please chime in.
My post got lost in the ether apparently. And it even wasn't complete
- and on 64bits it's 464Kb of tables alone. Needless to say I'm
worried about these sizes getting too large given that D is pretty
much statically linked ATM.
It didn't get lost. I saw it. I just haven't had the chance to review it
yet. :)
Great, I think I was spoiled by the great speed of the previous
destructive review. I guess no news is good news :)
[...]
Let me make it more explicit.
I'm looking for a review manager and anybody willing to revive the
review process instead of venting steam on proper property (pun
intended) design and seeking a value in requiring parens on no-arg
call (or proving otherwise).
[...]
Yeah I've basically resorted to thread-deleting the entire @property
thread along with its several unending sibling threads. It's not so much
that I don't care about it, as that it's just gotten too long-winded and
tiring. I'm ready to throw up my hands and let it all go down the pipes.
I don't think I've the time/energy to be a review manager, but I *will*
try to get to reviewing the code again sometime soon. IMNSHO, getting
the new std.uni into Phobos is *far* more important (and far more
profitable!) than the mountain out of molehill that is the current
property discussion.
T
--
Dmitry Olshansky
