Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 15:43:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I'd say we hold off on this until we finalize reference counting. Right now std.logger requires GC. -- Andrei for thread safety and performance we need to allocate strings. what happened to RCstring?
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On 6/16/15 12:12 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 15:43:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I'd say we hold off on this until we finalize reference counting. Right now std.logger requires GC. -- Andrei for thread safety and performance we need to allocate strings. what happened to RCstring? RCString is on my list. Right now I'm having an unbelievably good time with std.container. -- Andrei
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 10:16:18 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:58:12 +, weaselcat wrote: On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 08:52:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 18:50:33 UTC, weaselcat wrote: Yes, and it's an obvious issue. Some of the most frequently requested things are real tuple syntax, pattern matching, etc. Short of getting these into D itself(good luck,) any attempt at these will end up being an ugly hack. This is neither obvious issue, not a good solution. The fact that no one will implement custom pattern matching until it comes into language officially is a Good Thing (TM). If you say so, nearly every reddit thread about D a top voted comment is about the lack of a real preprocessor/AST macros. reddit herd are mostly monkeys which didn't even know D enough. avoid success at all costs
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 17:33:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/13/15 9:22 AM, weaselcat wrote: proper reference counting would be trivial to implement with a real macro system. The true Scotsman, eh :o). Well we don't have a real macro system. -- Andrei At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Proper reference counting would also be trivial to implement with a working scope implementation.
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:46:27 +, weaselcat wrote: On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 10:16:18 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:58:12 +, weaselcat wrote: On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 08:52:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 18:50:33 UTC, weaselcat wrote: Yes, and it's an obvious issue. Some of the most frequently requested things are real tuple syntax, pattern matching, etc. Short of getting these into D itself(good luck,) any attempt at these will end up being an ugly hack. This is neither obvious issue, not a good solution. The fact that no one will implement custom pattern matching until it comes into language officially is a Good Thing (TM). If you say so, nearly every reddit thread about D a top voted comment is about the lack of a real preprocessor/AST macros. reddit herd are mostly monkeys which didn't even know D enough. avoid success at all costs i honestly want reddit to be burnt. the only good thing i've seen from that is no, we don't follow #breakourcode, as some reddit retard that doesn't even using D will complain about that! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:58:12 +, weaselcat wrote: On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 08:52:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 18:50:33 UTC, weaselcat wrote: Yes, and it's an obvious issue. Some of the most frequently requested things are real tuple syntax, pattern matching, etc. Short of getting these into D itself(good luck,) any attempt at these will end up being an ugly hack. This is neither obvious issue, not a good solution. The fact that no one will implement custom pattern matching until it comes into language officially is a Good Thing (TM). If you say so, nearly every reddit thread about D a top voted comment is about the lack of a real preprocessor/AST macros. reddit herd are mostly monkeys which didn't even know D enough. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On 6/14/15 1:58 AM, weaselcat wrote: On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 08:52:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 18:50:33 UTC, weaselcat wrote: Yes, and it's an obvious issue. Some of the most frequently requested things are real tuple syntax, pattern matching, etc. Short of getting these into D itself(good luck,) any attempt at these will end up being an ugly hack. This is neither obvious issue, not a good solution. The fact that no one will implement custom pattern matching until it comes into language officially is a Good Thing (TM). If you say so, nearly every reddit thread about D a top voted comment is about the lack of a real preprocessor/AST macros. No. It's about the GC and tooling. -- Andrei
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 08:52:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 18:50:33 UTC, weaselcat wrote: Yes, and it's an obvious issue. Some of the most frequently requested things are real tuple syntax, pattern matching, etc. Short of getting these into D itself(good luck,) any attempt at these will end up being an ugly hack. This is neither obvious issue, not a good solution. The fact that no one will implement custom pattern matching until it comes into language officially is a Good Thing (TM). If you say so, nearly every reddit thread about D a top voted comment is about the lack of a real preprocessor/AST macros.
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On 2015-06-14 10:52, Dicebot wrote: The fact that no one will implement custom pattern matching until it comes into language officially is a Good Thing (TM). I had plans to try and implement pattern matching as a library component. Although, to do that properly I need better introspection for templates. There's an open merge request for template introspection that's waiting. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 08:36:16 UTC, extrawurst wrote: On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 12:58:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? Could you please update the dub-package for the std.logger update to the current version ? as long as I have to support D2067 for ldc/gdc I need to use the dub package of the logger and this is not api compatible to the one bundled with dmd2067.. -- Stephan Ok nevermind, the dub package does not support dmd2067 either...
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 18:50:33 UTC, weaselcat wrote: Yes, and it's an obvious issue. Some of the most frequently requested things are real tuple syntax, pattern matching, etc. Short of getting these into D itself(good luck,) any attempt at these will end up being an ugly hack. This is neither obvious issue, not a good solution. The fact that no one will implement custom pattern matching until it comes into language officially is a Good Thing (TM).
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 12:58:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? Could you please update the dub-package for the std.logger update to the current version ? as long as I have to support D2067 for ldc/gdc I need to use the dub package of the logger and this is not api compatible to the one bundled with dmd2067.. -- Stephan
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
I've started exploring the use of std.experimental.logger for my std.database work. Presumably it would get in before std.database. What does finalize reference counting mean? (discussion thread?) Is it about RefCounted? I'm using that extensively. erik
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 08:17:24 UTC, extrawurst wrote:
I found one issue using it the last day: It does not seem to be
formatting arguments in the XYZf() methods quite the same as
writefln. for example an exception object ist not automatically
converted to call its .toString() when passing errorf(err:
%s,e);
Is that intended or a bug ?
The following must definitely be a bug:
import std.stdio;
import std.experimental.logger;
void main()
{
writefln({%04d}, 15);
infof({%04d}, 15);
writefln({%08d}, 42);
infof({%08d}, 42);
}
Result (Linux x86_64, dmd 2.067.1):
$ rdmd logg.d
{0015}
2015-06-13T10:29:25.014:logg.d:main:7 {00015}
{0042}
2015-06-13T10:29:25.014:logg.d:main:9 {042}
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 12:58:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? I found one issue using it the last day: It does not seem to be formatting arguments in the XYZf() methods quite the same as writefln. for example an exception object ist not automatically converted to call its .toString() when passing errorf(err: %s,e); Is that intended or a bug ?
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On 6/12/15 5:58 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? I'd say we hold off on this until we finalize reference counting. Right now std.logger requires GC. -- Andrei
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 15:43:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/12/15 5:58 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? I'd say we hold off on this until we finalize reference counting. Right now std.logger requires GC. -- Andrei proper reference counting would be trivial to implement with a real macro system.
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 16:22:15 UTC, weaselcat wrote: proper reference counting would be trivial to implement with a real macro system. I have a suggestion. If so afraid of incorporating macros in D (macros can ruin almost any language, even very good), why not try to release a test build of DMD (Nightly DMD) with the macrosystem. And see what happens...
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On 6/13/15 9:22 AM, weaselcat wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 15:43:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/12/15 5:58 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? I'd say we hold off on this until we finalize reference counting. Right now std.logger requires GC. -- Andrei proper reference counting would be trivial to implement with a real macro system. The true Scotsman, eh :o). Well we don't have a real macro system. -- Andrei
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 16:22:15 UTC, weaselcat wrote: proper reference counting would be trivial to implement with a real macro system. BTW, its been 8 years since the dconf macro talk ;) http://s3.amazonaws.com/dconf2007/WalterAndrei.pdf
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 12:58:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? Is that really all there is to it (counting votes in a thread)? If so, I'll do it. Mike
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 10:07:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote: I personally consider replacing vibe.d native logger a crucial blocker for accepting std.experimental.logger into main namespace. that was my question, what keeps vibe.d from switching to std.exp.logger ? -- Stephan
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 08:37:57 UTC, Mike wrote: I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? Is that really all there is to it (counting votes in a thread)? If so, I'll do it. Mike The vote tally on the Review Queue page (6-yes, 6-no) does not agree with the vote tally on the std.experimental.logger review page (6-yes, 7-no). Furthermore, no one on the Phobos team voted yes (perhaps not a problem, but a concern). Documentation on the voting process [3] doesn't state what constitutes approval. If it is majority only, then according to the std.experimental.logger review [2], it shouldn't have even made it into std.experimental. Some clarification here would be helpful. [1] Review Queue - http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue [2] std.experimental.logger Review Page - http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.logger#Voting_for_std.experimental [3] Voting Process - http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process#Voting Mike
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 10:07:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote: The tricky part about being review manager is exactly that there are no strict rules. In the end it is all about ensuring Phobos quality and stability and sometimes arbitrary calls had to be made. Well, I'll be forthcoming and say that I use Phobos very little, and have little stake in this. I'm just a little frustrated with things not being followed through on and I want to do something about it. I won't be able to vouch for the quality of the submission, but I can collect the data, facilitate the process, document it, and perform the legwork. I also don't think two reviews/votes should take place at a time thinning out resources or causing reviewers to feel rushed. I suggest the vote for std.logger take place after the review/voting of std.allocator. Mike
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
It wasn't accepted at that point - review 3 has happened during which Andrei has reconsidered his std.experimental acceptance criteria and it got accepted with no additional voting. The tricky part about being review manager is exactly that there are no strict rules. In the end it is all about ensuring Phobos quality and stability and sometimes arbitrary calls had to be made. I personally consider replacing vibe.d native logger a crucial blocker for accepting std.experimental.logger into main namespace.
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 10:12:53 UTC, extrawurst wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 10:07:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote: I personally consider replacing vibe.d native logger a crucial blocker for accepting std.experimental.logger into main namespace. that was my question, what keeps vibe.d from switching to std.exp.logger ? -- Stephan No one has attempted to do that as per my knowledge
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 17:33:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/13/15 9:22 AM, weaselcat wrote: On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 15:43:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/12/15 5:58 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? I'd say we hold off on this until we finalize reference counting. Right now std.logger requires GC. -- Andrei proper reference counting would be trivial to implement with a real macro system. The true Scotsman, eh :o). Well we don't have a real macro system. -- Andrei Yes, and it's an obvious issue. Some of the most frequently requested things are real tuple syntax, pattern matching, etc. Short of getting these into D itself(good luck,) any attempt at these will end up being an ugly hack.
std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread?
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 13:22:59 UTC, extrawurst wrote: On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 12:58:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? By the way do you know of any project using it ? GFM, a video game/multimedia library uses it. https://github.com/d-gamedev-team/gfm Do you have any idea if it is an option for vibe.d to switch to your logger ? -- Stephan
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 13:22:59 UTC, extrawurst wrote: On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 12:58:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? By the way do you know of any project using it ? Do you have any idea if it is an option for vibe.d to switch to your logger ? I'm using it in a (non-public) vibe.d based project. It works, but I'm not doing anything fancy with it.
Re: std.(experimental.)logger voting manager wanted
On Friday, 12 June 2015 at 12:58:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: std.(experimental.)logger has been in phobos for one release. The idea was to mature stuff in experimental for one release and then have a vote on inclusion into phobos as std.logger. I would like to see this vote happen before 2.068. Unfortunately, Dicebot is not longer the review manager. Who wants to count yes/no/(my logger is better) votes in a forum thread? By the way do you know of any project using it ? Do you have any idea if it is an option for vibe.d to switch to your logger ? -- Stephan
