I think immutable could benefit from a Value Range Propagation-like uniqueness
logic:
string a;
char[] b;
string c = a ~ b; // result of ~ is always unique
string z = c.dup; // also any kind of .dup is definitely unique
char[] q = z.dup; // also okay -- assign to a non-immutable
The lines w/ dup
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:38:52 +0200, dsimcha wrote:
In the process, I've built up such a good mental model of the GC
codebase that I'd hate to see it go to waste.
Here's a question for you. What happens when a class destructor, called by
the GC during a collection, allocates?
(Hint: nothi
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 17:43 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[ . . . ]
Send feedback to Russ Cox?
[ . . . ]
> Actually, that's one of the things I really hate about academic writings in
> general (not that this article is particularly academic, as far as
[ . . . ]
I take exception to this catego
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:38:52 +0200, dsimcha wrote:
I've been optimizing the druntime garbage collector lately, and as I've
found several smaller optimizations since I submitted my patch last
week, I've temporarily forked the druntime Git repository to store those
optimizations. The result
I've been optimizing the druntime garbage collector lately, and as I've
found several smaller optimizations since I submitted my patch last
week, I've temporarily forked the druntime Git repository to store those
optimizations. The results are here:
https://github.com/dsimcha/druntime/wiki/Dr
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:18:58 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:26:22 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/26/11 10:17 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:09:45 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
I think I glanced over a recent svn commit that f
"%u" wrote in message
news:ik70pq$1a37$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>> Lol, okay. Do you have any other suggestions for a better
> solution on how to avoid duplicating generic access masks like
> MAXIMUM_ALLOWED inside each access mask type?
>
>> You're doing it wrong. Create OO wrapper instead.
>
>
>> Lol, okay. Do you have any other suggestions for a better
solution on how to avoid duplicating generic access masks like
MAXIMUM_ALLOWED inside each access mask type?
> You're doing it wrong. Create OO wrapper instead.
Hm... but:
(1) I'm not going to create a new instance of an entire class e
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:25:24 -0500, Steven Wawryk
wrote:
On 24/02/11 14:47, dsimcha wrote:
On 2/22/2011 12:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday 21 February 2011 20:46:56 %u wrote:
Hi,
I'm just curious... why is saying something like this:
extern(C)
private static const pure override
On 24/02/11 14:47, dsimcha wrote:
On 2/22/2011 12:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday 21 February 2011 20:46:56 %u wrote:
Hi,
I'm just curious... why is saying something like this:
extern(C)
private static const pure override final synchronized ~this() { }
allowed?
dmd is pretty lax a
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 14:55:34 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > Honestly, I think that the need for actual ASCII strings is quite rare
> > and that it _should_ not be encouraged.
>
> I need ASCII strings (or mutable/immutable arrays of ASCII chars) all the
> time, they come from
On 02/24/2011 12:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> the type of "test" is string
Sorry to take it out of context but that statement is not always
correct. String literals can be string, wstring, or dstring:
void foo(string c, wstring w, dstring d)
{}
void main()
{
foo("c", "w", "d");
On 02/24/2011 11:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Actually, that's one of the things I really hate about academic writings in
general (not that this article is particularly academic, as far as
academic-themed stuff goes): There's rarely a decent overview. You're
expected to implicitly piece together
"spir" wrote in message
news:mailman.1923.1298557650.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> Hello,
>
> "Regular Expression Matching Can Be Simple And Fast (but is slow in Java,
> Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, ...)"
> A *very* interesting and well written article about slow & fast regex
> engines, why
Jonathan M Davis:
> Honestly, I think that the need for actual ASCII strings is quite rare and
> that
> it _should_ not be encouraged.
I need ASCII strings (or mutable/immutable arrays of ASCII chars) all the time,
they come from English text, genomic data, etc.
Bye,
bearophile
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 13:55:43 bearophile wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer:
> > wait, you thought char[] was an array? You poor poor soul ;)
> >
> > I predict we shall get 1-2 questions/claims of incredulity like this a
> > month until we get a real string type.
>
> There's a need for both
Steven Schveighoffer:
> wait, you thought char[] was an array? You poor poor soul ;)
>
> I predict we shall get 1-2 questions/claims of incredulity like this a
> month until we get a real string type.
There's a need for both unicode strings, and simpler strings of 7 bit ASCII
chars (both mut
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:21:08 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
Of course it's not that hard. But when things can be safely automated,
I don't see why they shouldn't be. Unless I'm missing some important
factor of duping string literals that was not mentioned already.
It's a 'hidden allocation'.
On 2/24/11 3:13 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
Yes. And you know what's going to happen next, right? Everyone is
going to create their own implementation of a string type because of
these non-issues. Happens in C/C++ all the time, I see it in almost
every mid-large codebase ou
On 2/24/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> But what you are asking is for the compiler to implicitly dup it.
Only when the lhs is a mutable type. If it's immutable (string), then
you don't have to dup it. Hence:
string a = "abc";
string b = "abc";
assert(&a[0] == &b[0]);
There's no point in dupi
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> Yes. And you know what's going to happen next, right? Everyone is
> going to create their own implementation of a string type because of
> these non-issues. Happens in C/C++ all the time, I see it in almost
> every mid-large codebase out there.
Well, aside from discussion
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:33:52 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 2/24/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
"test" _is_ immutable, so assigning it to a dchar[] without
duping it is bad anyway).
Can't the compiler figure that out on its own?
It did figure that out (that it was bad) and told you not t
On 2/24/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> "test" _is_ immutable, so assigning it to a dchar[] without
> duping it is bad anyway).
Can't the compiler figure that out on its own?
Ali Çehreli napisał:
> Implicit conversions to immutable in the following two functions feel
> harmless. Has this been discussed before?
>
> string foo()
> {
> char[] s;
> return s; // Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
>//(s) of type char[] to
On 2/24/11, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
> A string literal is immutable, dchar[] is mutable. These should work:
>
> immutable(dchar)[] test = "test";
> dstring test = "test";
> auto test = "test"d;
Ah right, the postfix form. That's what i was looking for. I know a
literal is immutable, I've t
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:42:38 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 2/24/11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> >> Now I see why using char[] fails. It's because [ElementType!(R).init];
> >> returns a dchar[].
> >
> > Yep, Unicode for the win. dchar[] is swappable.
>
> Oh looks l
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:42:38 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 2/24/11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
Now I see why using char[] fails. It's because [ElementType!(R).init];
returns a dchar[].
Yep, Unicode for the win. dchar[] is swappable.
Oh looks like you're right. I
On 2/24/11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
>
>> Now I see why using char[] fails. It's because [ElementType!(R).init];
>> returns a dchar[].
>
> Yep, Unicode for the win. dchar[] is swappable.
>
Oh looks like you're right. I can use reverse on dchar[]. Weird, I
thought I've alread
Regressions? Why.. we don't have those in D!
See
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> Now I see why using char[] fails. It's because [ElementType!(R).init];
> returns a dchar[].
Yep, Unicode for the win. dchar[] is swappable.
Also there is std.exception.assumUnique()
Ali Ãehreli Wrote:
> I have another question: Does calling .idup copy any data below?
>
> string foo()
> {
> char[] s;
> return s.idup; // Is the content copied?
> }
>
> Ali
>
Yes, dup stands for duplicate and is a property of arrays.
There was discussion for allowing immutable ob
On 24.02.2011 19:08, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Implicit conversions to immutable in the following two functions feel
harmless. Has this been discussed before?
string foo()
{
char[] s;
return s; // Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
// (s) of type char[] to string
}
string bar()
{
char[] s;
re
On 02/24/2011 10:28 AM, spir wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 07:08 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> Implicit conversions to immutable in the following two functions feel
>> harmless.
>> Has this been discussed before?
>>
>> string foo()
>> {
>> char[] s;
>> return s; // Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
On 02/24/2011 07:08 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Implicit conversions to immutable in the following two functions feel harmless.
Has this been discussed before?
string foo()
{
char[] s;
return s; // Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
// (s) of type char[] to string
}
string bar()
{
char[] s;
Now I see why using char[] fails. It's because [ElementType!(R).init];
returns a dchar[].
Implicit conversions to immutable in the following two functions feel
harmless. Has this been discussed before?
string foo()
{
char[] s;
return s; // Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
//(s) of type char[] to string
}
string bar()
{
char[] s;
Would it be wrong if hasSwappableElements worked on char arrays?
Look:
import std.stdio;
import std.algorithm;
import std.range;
import std.traits;
void main()
{
char[] r = "abc".dup;
// fails:
static assert(hasSwappableElements!(char[]));
// fails because reverse uses h
I notice that some dmd and Phobos bugs are fixed without any supporting
unit tests.
The following approach is very effective in code quality:
1) A bug is discovered; two issues are exposed:
i) the bug itself
ii) the lack of a unit test that could have caught the bug
2) Write a unit test t
On 2011-02-24 10:49:31 -0500, Andrew Wiley said:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Alexey Prokhin
wrote:
I use cmake to compile druntime and phobos:
$ cd ldc2_build_dir
$ cmake -DRUNTIME_DIR=path_to_druntime -DPHOBOS2_DIR=path_to_phobos .
$ make phobos2 (or 'make runtime' if you want to build
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Alexey Prokhin
wrote:
> I use cmake to compile druntime and phobos:
> $ cd ldc2_build_dir
> $ cmake -DRUNTIME_DIR=path_to_druntime -DPHOBOS2_DIR=path_to_phobos .
> $ make phobos2 (or 'make runtime' if you want to build only druntime)
>
I tried building on ARM jus
On 2/24/11 8:26 AM, spir wrote:
Hello,
"Regular Expression Matching Can Be Simple And Fast (but is slow in
Java, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, ...)"
A *very* interesting and well written article about slow & fast regex
engines, why and how:
http://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html
Denis
An often-
Yep, finite automata FTW!
Same goes for non-regexp string matching, see Aho-Corasick algorithm.
On 02/24/2011 03:26 PM, spir wrote:
Hello,
"Regular Expression Matching Can Be Simple And Fast (but is slow in Java, Perl,
PHP, Python, Ruby, ...)"
A *very* interesting and well written article about slow & fast regex engines,
why and how:
http://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html
Denis
(PS:
Hello,
"Regular Expression Matching Can Be Simple And Fast (but is slow in Java, Perl,
PHP, Python, Ruby, ...)"
A *very* interesting and well written article about slow & fast regex engines,
why and how:
http://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html
Denis
--
_
vita es estrany
spir
On 2011-02-23 16:36, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/23/11 9:30 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-23 13:57, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/23/11 5:10 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-23 03:28, bearophile wrote:
This is a Scala implementation of a function that prints the carpet:
def
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:09:35 -0300, Tom wrote:
> Hi, how can I create an empty element with current D2 std.xml Element
> implementation?
>
> stdout.writeln(new Element("foo")); // Yields instead of
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Tom;
Hi,
I see you asked this question in D.learn first, and that i
Hi, how can I create an empty element with current D2 std.xml Element
implementation?
stdout.writeln(new Element("foo")); // Yields instead of
Thanks in advance,
Tom;
%u Wrote:
> Lol, okay. Do you have any other suggestions for a better solution on how to
> avoid duplicating
> generic access masks like MAXIMUM_ALLOWED inside each access mask type?
You're doing it wrong. Create OO wrapper instead.
On 02/24/2011 09:55 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 23:51 +0100, spir wrote:
[ . . . ]
(sequence(["#"])(nextCarpet) drop n next) foreach println
Hey guys, it's PostScript, no it's Forth ;-)
Note that method chaining in typical OO syntax writes the process in
chronologic
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 23:51 +0100, spir wrote:
[ . . . ]
> (sequence(["#"])(nextCarpet) drop n next) foreach println
Hey guys, it's PostScript, no it's Forth ;-)
--
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 220
51 matches
Mail list logo
