On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 06:24:27 UTC, drug wrote:
Phobos provides this by SortedRange:
https://dlang.org/phobos/std_range.html#.SortedRange
Example of usage:
https://run.dlang.io/is/WW2bn0
Thanks!
:-)
Phobos provides this by SortedRange:
https://dlang.org/phobos/std_range.html#.SortedRange
Example of usage:
https://run.dlang.io/is/WW2bn0
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 04:38:07 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 04:03:05 UTC, mw wrote:
So my next question: given N, how do I create a Tuple!(double,
double, ... n-double) type programmatically?
import std.meta: Repeat;
alias NDoubles = Tuple!(Repeat!(N,
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 05:28:41 UTC, user1234 wrote:
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 04:13:16 UTC, Andrew Edwards
wrote:
Given:
===
extern(C):
char*[] hldr;
enum I = (1<<0);
struct S { char* ft; char** fm; int f; }
void main(){}
===
How do I initialize an
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 04:13:16 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
Given:
===
extern(C):
char*[] hldr;
enum I = (1<<0);
struct S { char* ft; char** fm; int f; }
void main(){}
===
How do I initialize an instance of S at global scope?
You cant. At the global scope the
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 04:03:05 UTC, mw wrote:
So my next question: given N, how do I create a Tuple!(double,
double, ... n-double) type programmatically?
import std.meta: Repeat;
alias NDoubles = Tuple!(Repeat!(N, double));
Note that N must be a compile-time constant, since the
Given:
===
extern(C):
char*[] hldr;
enum I = (1<<0);
struct S { char* ft; char** fm; int f; }
void main(){}
===
How do I initialize an instance of S at global scope?
// Not sure how to do this... so try to keep as close to original as
possible
// Nope, does not work
We have:
// sorted values
size_t lines = [20, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1798, 1824, 1825,
1839, 1840];
size_t search = 21;
Goal:
// Fast find index of the '21' in ordered array 'lines'
auto found = lines.binarySearch( 20 ); // 0 - index
auto low = lines.binarySearchLow(
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 03:51:02 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 02:25:23 UTC, mw wrote:
onlineapp.d(8): Error: no [] operator overload for type
CsvRecord!(int, cast(Malformed)1, string, dchar)
should `r`'s type be integer array? and how do I access each
elelment
On Monday, 7 December 2020 at 02:25:23 UTC, mw wrote:
onlineapp.d(8): Error: no [] operator overload for type
CsvRecord!(int, cast(Malformed)1, string, dchar)
should `r`'s type be integer array? and how do I access each
elelment of the row?
Thanks.
The docs [1] say that csvReader returns
Hi,
I'm trying this code: i.e. print out the 1st element of each row
https://run.dlang.io/is/pG921a
void main()
{
import std.csv;
import std.stdio: write, writeln, writef, writefln;
import std.algorithm.comparison : equal;
string text = "76,26,22";
auto records =
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 05:04:35 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 02:07:10 UTC, Jack wrote:
On Saturday, 5 December 2020 at 23:31:31 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Saturday, 5 December 2020 at 21:55:13 UTC, Jack wrote:
[...]
`ws.length` is the length in `wchar`s, but
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 04:41:56 UTC, Виталий Фадеев wrote:
On Saturday, 5 December 2020 at 19:51:14 UTC, Jack wrote:
So in D I have a struct like this:
struct ProcessResult
{
string[] output;
bool ok;
}
in order to use output from C WINAPI with unicode, I need to
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 17:28:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
D is good for systems level work but that's not all. I use it
for projects where, in the past, I'd have split the work
between two languages (Python and C/C++). I much prefer
working with a single language that spans the
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 17:35:19 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
Is automatic atomic reference counting a contender for kernels?
In kernels you want to reduce the increase/decrease of the
counts. Therefore the Rust approach using 'clone' is better
unless there is some optimizer that can figure it
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 15:44:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
It was more a hypothetical, as read barriers are too expensive.
But write barriers should be ok, so a single-threaded
incremental collector could work well if D takes a principled
stance on objects not being 'shared' not
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 16:42:00 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 14:44:25 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
And while on the subject of low level programming in JVM or
.NET.
https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/12/net-5-runtime-improvements/
Didnt say anything about low
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 14:44:25 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
And while on the subject of low level programming in JVM or
.NET.
https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/12/net-5-runtime-improvements/
Didnt say anything about low level, only simd intrinsics, which
isnt really low level?
It also
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 14:11:41 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 11:35:17 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 11:27:39 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
[...]
No, unique doesnt need indirection, neither does ARC, we put
the ref count at a
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 14:45:21 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
Well, you could in theory avoid putting owning pointers on the
stack/globals or require that they are registered as gc roots.
Then you don't have to scan the stack. All you need then is
write barriers. IIRC
'shared' with teeth?
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 08:59:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 08:36:49 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
Yes, but they don't allow low level programming. Go also
freeze to sync threads this has a rather profound impact on
code generation. They have spent a lot of
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 08:12:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 07:45:17 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
GCs scan memory, sure. Lots of variations. Not germane. Not
a rationale.
We need to freeze the threads when collecting stacks/globals.
D is employed at
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 11:35:17 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 11:27:39 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
[...]
No, unique doesnt need indirection, neither does ARC, we put
the ref count at a negative offset.
shared_ptr is a fat pointer with the ref count as a
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 12:58:44 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
I was thinking about how to deal with this in D and the
question is if it would be better to be able to control move as
default per type basis. This way we can implement Rust style
reference counting without intruding too much on the
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 11:07:50 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
ARC can be done incrementally, we can do it as a library first
and use a modified version existing GC for detecting failed
borrows at runtime during testing.
But all libraries that use owning pointers need ownership to
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 11:27:39 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
ARC with a library will have overhead unless the compiler/ABI
is changed e.g. unique_ptr in C++ has an indirection.
No, unique doesnt need indirection, neither does ARC, we put the
ref count at a negative offset.
shared_ptr is
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 11:07:50 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 10:44:39 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 05:29:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grostad wrote:
It has to be either some kind of heavily customisable small GC
(i.e. with our resources
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 10:44:39 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 05:29:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
It has to be either some kind of heavily customisable small GC
(i.e. with our resources the GC cannot please everyone), or
arc. The GC as it is just hurts the
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 05:29:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 05:16:26 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
How difficult would it be to add a, selectable, low-latency GC
to dlang?
Is it closer to "we cant get there from here" or "no big deal
if you already have
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 08:59:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
Well, you could in theory avoid putting owning pointers on the
stack/globals or require that they are registered as gc roots.
Then you don't have to scan the stack. All you need then is
write barriers. IIRC
Abd read
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 08:36:49 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
Yes, but they don't allow low level programming. Go also
freeze to sync threads this has a rather profound impact on
code generation. They have spent a lot of effort on sync
instructions in code gen to lower the latency AFAIK.
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 08:12:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 07:45:17 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
GCs scan memory, sure. Lots of variations. Not germane. Not
a rationale.
We need to freeze the threads when collecting stacks/globals.
OK. Low latency
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 07:45:17 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
GCs scan memory, sure. Lots of variations. Not germane. Not
a rationale.
We need to freeze the threads when collecting stacks/globals.
D is employed at multiple "levels". Whatever level you call
it, Go and modern JVMs
33 matches
Mail list logo
