Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
...
> Now onto why ref was disallowed to bind to an rvalue. This is because
> some functions take things by ref intending to change them. Passing an
> rvalue is in such cases a bug.
>
> I agree there are functions that only want to use ref for speed
> purposes. I sugg
On 20/04/2009 01:13, BCS wrote:
Hello Yigal,
everything you said is true. there is some sort of a compile-time
since
the code is getting compiled. But in the above scheme there isn't any
real difference between run-time and compile-time and this distinction
has lost its meaning.
compare the fol
Hello Steven,
Also, I don't think the requirement for this feature needs to be for
the arguments to be templated, it should be sufficient to have a
single string template argument. This way, you can overload opDotExp
functions via argument lists.
split the difference and allow either (but
Hello Christopher,
The utility is when you are looking for methods to invoke via runtime
reflection, you can determine that a given function is one of these
runtime opDotExp equivalents.
So it is being argued that there should be a standard way to do a run time
function invocation system? I'l
Hello BCS,
That didn't sound like I intended it to so...
Clarification: I think most of us could convince most of the rest of us of
the our point given face time because I don't think there are near as many
opposing views as it seems. (That is with points of operation, not with issues
of synt
Sean Kelly wrote:
> Jason House wrote:
>> Jason House wrote:
>>
>>> Tango's GC (and therefore
>>> druntime's GC) has an explicit notification mechanism.
>>
>> I guess I shouldn't have assumed that the features of tango became
>> part of druntime. I don't see any notification mechanism :(
>
> Sa
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:42:19 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:26:11 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:57 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
You completely lost me about the necessity of a standardized catch-all
function. My view is that if you want to forward to someone else, you
just call the runtime invoke() for the guy you want to forward to. So
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What's a rationale behind an issue described bug 2621?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2621
Why isn't it allowed anymore?
It broke quite a lot of my c
Hello Adam,
BCS wrote:
(In the above, you seeme to be working with the assumption of the non
static opDotExp form. I, BTW, see no use for it as it adds no new
functionality to D where as the static opDotExp(char[],T...)(T t)
form adds a new ability)
When you say static opDotExp I am assuming
Christopher Wright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 22:21:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but
continue the terrible confusion going in this thread.
Then let's try to remove some of that confus
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 22:21:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but continue
the terrible confusion going in this thread.
Then let's try to remove some of that confusion.
Thanks for doing so.
BCS wrote:
> Hello Adam,
>
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Adam,
>>>
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The point of using "." is not syntactic convenience as much as the
> ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with
> algor
Hello Yigal,
everything you said is true. there is some sort of a compile-time
since
the code is getting compiled. But in the above scheme there isn't any
real difference between run-time and compile-time and this distinction
has lost its meaning.
compare the following:
process A:
1) use runtime
Personally, I usually use destructors to clean up or to decrement use
counts, bleach secure data, etc. but it should be guaranteed that if
data is no longer allocated, the destructor is called. That may be
elsewhere in the spec, though.
Also, hardware failure should always be expected:
Webse
On 19/04/2009 23:33, BCS wrote:
Hello Yigal,
On 19/04/2009 01:22, BCS wrote:
Hello Yigal,
On 18/04/2009 21:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
In the syntax
a.b
how would either of a and b be identified at runtime? I mean, you
write the code somewhere and it gets compiled. It's not like you'
On 19/04/2009 22:52, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What's a rationale behind an issue described bug 2621?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2621
Why isn't it allowed anymore?
It brok
Hello Yigal,
On 19/04/2009 01:22, BCS wrote:
Hello Yigal,
On 18/04/2009 21:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
In the syntax
a.b
how would either of a and b be identified at runtime? I mean, you
write the code somewhere and it gets compiled. It's not like you're
reading "a.b" from the console
Hello Adam,
BCS wrote:
Hello Adam,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The point of using "." is not syntactic convenience as much as the
ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with
algorithms that use the standard notation.
What if the d
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's a rationale behind an issue described bug 2621?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2621
Why isn't it allowed anymore?
It broke quite a lot of my code. And while it is fixable
OK, so this should be on D Announce, and is, but I'll echo it here since it
contains components that may be of wider interest.
Incomplete at this point, though there's a working example, but I have to break
off now and do some building work. You can find documentation and a zip file
(currently
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> Let's nip this in the bud right now. A const value type parameter
> should automatically decide whether to pass by reference or not.
Suggested change: an 'in' parameter should be either by-value or
by-reference at the compiler's discretion. There needs to be a way to
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 22:21:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but continue
the terrible confusion going in this thread.
Then let's try to remove some of that confusion.
Thanks for doing so. Given that my wits are spen
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's a rationale behind an issue described bug 2621?
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2621
>
> Why isn't it allowed anymore?
>
> It broke quite a lot of my code. And while it is fixable by doing
>
> auto t
Michel Fortin wrote:
The thing is that the name of that "catchAllHandlerFunc" function needs
to be standardised for it to work with runtime reflection.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
However, opDotExp would be hamstringed if it were made to serve this
function.
Since classes can implemen
Denis Koroskin wrote:
> What's a rationale behind an issue described bug 2621?
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2621
>
> Why isn't it allowed anymore?
>
> It broke quite a lot of my code. And while it is fixable by doing
>
> auto tmp = someFunctionThatRetunsStruct();
> someMethodT
Christopher Wright, el 18 de abril a las 22:06 me escribiste:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> >Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >>You missed the point. I'm not talking about freeing the memory. I'm
> >>talking about finalizers. A finalizer could send a "bye" packet throgh the
> >>net. That can't be handled by t
Leandro Lucarella, el 19 de abril a las 13:08 me escribiste:
> Don, el 19 de abril a las 07:35 me escribiste:
> > Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > >I think shared memory is an example of memory resource that's not freed by
> > >the OS on program exit.
> >
> > Really? That sounds like an OS memory leak
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's a rationale behind an issue described bug 2621?
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2621
>
> Why isn't it allowed anymore?
>
> It broke quite a lot of my code. And while it is fixable by doing
>
> auto t
Don, el 19 de abril a las 07:35 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >I think shared memory is an example of memory resource that's not freed by
> >the OS on program exit.
>
> Really? That sounds like an OS memory leak. Security issue, too: run
> your program, allocated shared memory, then
Unknown W. Brackets, el 18 de abril a las 16:51 me escribiste:
> Well, I guess it would be doable to guarantee destruction, but *only* if
> order of destruction was not guaranteed.
Yes, of course, order *can't* be guaranteed (unless you add read/write
barriers and a lot of overhead at least =)
>
Denis Koroskin wrote:
What's a rationale behind an issue described bug 2621?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2621
Why isn't it allowed anymore?
It broke quite a lot of my code. And while it is fixable by doing
auto tmp = someFunctionThatRetunsStruct();
someMethodThatAcceptsStruct
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:26:11 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:57 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Adam Burton
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:26:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:57 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Adam Burto
Jason House wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Tango's GC (and therefore
druntime's GC) has an explicit notification mechanism.
I guess I shouldn't have assumed that the features of tango became part of
druntime. I don't see any notification mechanism :(
Same as Tango:
alias void delegate(Object)
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:57 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
What about using something like
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:00:50 -0400, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Yeah, I get that it can be done manually. What I'm suggesting is that
the compiler makes sure the static assert occurs if thbe result of
compiling the template instance results in an empty function. I look
at it
Adam Burton wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>
>> Hello Adam,
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>
The point of using "." is not syntactic convenience as much as the
ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with
algorithms that use the
On 2009-04-18 22:21:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but continue
the terrible confusion going in this thread.
Then let's try to remove some of that confusion.
You say: well if opDot were a template then a scripting language can't
Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> What about using something like '->' for dynamic calls instead of
>>>
BCS wrote:
> Hello Adam,
>
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> The point of using "." is not syntactic convenience as much as the
>>> ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with
>>> algorithms that use the standard notation.
>>>
>> Wha
Daniel Keep wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Close a connection gracefully for example, I guess (I mean, send a "bye"
packed, not just close the socket abruptly). Same for closing files
writing some mark or something. They can be risky when finalization is
not
deterministic
Walter Bright wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> Close a connection gracefully for example, I guess (I mean, send a "bye"
>> packed, not just close the socket abruptly). Same for closing files
>> writing some mark or something. They can be risky when finalization is
>> not
>> deterministic thou
What's a rationale behind an issue described bug 2621?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2621
Why isn't it allowed anymore?
It broke quite a lot of my code. And while it is fixable by doing
auto tmp = someFunctionThatRetunsStruct();
someMethodThatAcceptsStructByReference(tmp);
it l
Adam Burton wrote:
What about using something like '->' for dynamic calls instead of '.'?
When
you see '.' your safe in the knowledge that at a glance you know said
method
with said signature exists else the compiler will throw a paddy, when you
see '->' you know that method call is evaluate
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
What about using something like '->' for dynamic calls instead of
'.'?
That's absolutely useless. If I have to w
Daniel Keep wrote:
>
> bearophile wrote:
>> downs:
>>> bearophile:
But a static foreach (on a static data structure that has opApply) is not
doable yet, I think.
>>> Foreach on a tuple is evaluated at compile-time.
>> Yes, that's the whole point of that Range!().
>> But you can't use th
Don wrote:
[snip]
I think shared memory is an example of memory resource that's not
freed by
the OS on program exit.
Really? That sounds like an OS memory leak. Security issue, too: run
your program, allocated shared memory, then exit. Repeat until all
memory is exhausted.
Run your program
48 matches
Mail list logo
