On Sunday, 19 February 2017 at 01:52:07 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 at 22:40:44 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
Hi Guys, due to the old CTFE status thread getting to page
30, I am now starting a new one.
[...]
Thank you for your continued work on this. I heavily rely on
D's CTFE functionality and I try to read all your updates on
it.
Hello Moritz,
D's ctfe functionality is almost complete.
This thread is not about ctfe as it is currently implemented.
I am working on/writing about a faster re-implementation of
ctfe.
When my work is finished nothing will change functionality
wise, it will just be much more efficient.
Hello Stefan,
my apologies if I wasn't clear: I'm aware that this isn't about
adding anything new in terms of functionality, what I intended to
imply with "heavily rely on" was that I use enough of it for it
to be noticeable in compile time / memory consumption, which is
why I'm very happy about potential speedup and/or memory
consumption reduction in CTFE. One public example of that was
llvm-d <2.0.
