On 2012-01-07 21:39, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Nick Sabalauskya@a.a wrote in message
news:jeaaae$304r$1...@digitalmars.com...
Jacob Carlborgd...@me.com wrote in message
news:je9fbv$1heb$2...@digitalmars.com...
I would really like to do a complete rewrite of the tool, the internals.
Well
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to announce the release of a new version of Visual D.
Visual D is a Visual Studio package providing both project management and
language services for the D programming language. It works with Visual
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote in message
news:jec1j6$2rbu$1...@digitalmars.com...
Ideally it should come before other new features. I mean, the more stuff
we put in there the more mess it will be. The point of the refactoring is
of course to make it easier to add new features and to
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jecuno$18e6$1...@digitalmars.com...
Something possibly releated I've been meaning to bring up: I've been
thinking that DVM's commands and options should work more like, say, git
or svn. By that I mean: Right now DVM has a set of commands, and a
On Fri 30-Dec 10:00, Stephan wrote:
On 29.12.2011 13:31, Trass3r wrote:
On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 10:32:49 UTC, Extrawurst wrote:
nice work. why moved to github ?
I'm sick of having to switch from git to hg commands every time I work
on cl4d.
So I converted it to git, cleaned up the
I'm trying to use cl4d, but when I compile I get a stack overflow..
Sigh.
As I stated in the announcement you need a HEAD dmd.
Or use a cl4d revision prior to the mentioned bugfix.
On Sun 08-Jan 22:53, Trass3r wrote:
I'm trying to use cl4d, but when I compile I get a stack overflow..
Sigh.
As I stated in the announcement you need a HEAD dmd.
Or use a cl4d revision prior to the mentioned bugfix.
Oh I think I now get what you mean by HEAD dmd: the latest version on
About the 'mentioned bugfix', I assume you're referring to bug
6473 has been fixed = so let's fix that memory leak?
Yep, just git checkout the revision before that one.
On Mon 09-Jan 0:05, Trass3r wrote:
About the 'mentioned bugfix', I assume you're referring to bug 6473
has been fixed = so let's fix that memory leak?
Yep, just git checkout the revision before that one.
Ok, so when i try to compile it says
src\opencl\c\cl_d3d10.d(88): Error: undefined
Ok, so when i try to compile it says
src\opencl\c\cl_d3d10.d(88): Error: undefined identifier UINT
src\opencl\c\cl_d3d10.d(96): Error: undefined identifier UINT
and upon changing those to uint I get
src\opencl\c\cl_d3d11.d(77): Error: undefined identifier ID3D11Buffer
On 2012-01-08 21:34, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jacob Carlborgd...@me.com wrote in message
news:jec1j6$2rbu$1...@digitalmars.com...
Ideally it should come before other new features. I mean, the more stuff
we put in there the more mess it will be. The point of the refactoring is
of course to make
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And that Visual-D just had a new release that includes
experimental code completion, and that Visual-D and DDT are
both rapidly evolving...
Awesome! Mono-D has code-completion and renaming features as
well. There's an issue with MonoDevelop preventing tooltips, but
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
I was impressed though that none of them seemed to be buying any of the crap
that rapidcoder was spreading.
rapidcoder's brother has put up a video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rI85jH3F4Ufeature=related
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 01:48:34 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 8 January 2012 03:44, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 1/7/2012 4:54 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
I think it simply requires a lot of work in the compiler.
Not that much work. Most of it segues nicely into the
On 08-01-2012 00:06, Manu wrote:
On 7 January 2012 20:59, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com
mailto:bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Manu:
The tendency to encourage use of dynamic arrays will be a major
problem.
I don't know how much big that problem will be, D dynamic
On 08-01-2012 01:27, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2012 6:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce COFF?
It will be irrelevant, as the linker will read whatever it puts out, and
the linker will read COFF.
There is no reason why a linker cannot
On 8 January 2012 08:03, F i L witte2...@gmail.com wrote:
I've got some interesting ideas on how pre-written code packages could be
easily designer-style assembled in-editor and compiled into efficient
native logic blocks on the fly. Only D's fast native compile times and
easy-to-grasp syntax
On 8 January 2012 11:56, a a...@a.com wrote:
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 01:48:34 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 8 January 2012 03:44, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
On 1/7/2012 4:54 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
I think it simply requires a lot of work in the compiler.
Not that
On 8 January 2012 02:27, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 1/7/2012 6:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce COFF?
It will be irrelevant, as the linker will read whatever it puts out, and
the linker will read COFF.
There
On 8/01/12 4:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2012 4:12 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
The main advantage of Lua for game code (in my opinion) is runtime
reloading,
and the ability to avoid recompiles just to test some new game logic.
That's not
so easy with C++.
D is far faster at compiling
On 2012-01-08 01:27, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2012 6:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce COFF?
It will be irrelevant, as the linker will read whatever it puts out, and
the linker will read COFF.
There is no reason why a linker cannot
On 2012-01-08 02:40, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Froglegslug...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:lwcqnrvamqlnjjlxz...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
can reload scripts while program is executing. Neither D nor C++ work
here.
Why not a dll? Those can be compiled/loaded/reloaded at runtime.
Am 08.01.2012 12:05, schrieb Manu:
On 8 January 2012 08:03, F i L witte2...@gmail.com
mailto:witte2...@gmail.com wrote:
I've got some interesting ideas on how pre-written code packages
could be easily designer-style assembled in-editor and compiled into
efficient native logic blocks
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 00:27:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2012 6:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce
COFF?
It will be irrelevant, as the linker will read whatever it puts
out, and the linker will read COFF.
There is no
On 8/01/12 2:14 PM, Trass3r wrote:
Also the dmd code needs improvement. It should leverage C++11 features,
become more modular and code quality needs to be improved. For example
the typed Array was long overdue, yet people still use that crappy
tdata() syntax instead of just []. The C++11 range
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 14:39:59 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
It's still far too early to start using C++11 stuff because not
all compilers support it. OSX still ships with g++ 4.2.
Expecting people to install a new compiler just to compile the
DMD code is a pointless barrier. Especially
You went from an Apple IIc to a 486? That's quite a leap.
I interviewed at Blizzard back in the day and that was enough to sour me on the
game industry. This was before the era of cinematic games though.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 7, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Paulo
simdop will need more overloads, e.g. some
instructions need immediate bytes.
z = simdop(SHUFPS, x, y, 0);
How about this:
__v128 simdop(T...)(SIMD op, T args);
On 7/01/12 7:29 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
IMO, Indie gamedev is really the only way to go if you want to make games.
All the way until college I was convinced I wanted to work for a major game
company. Then I started learning more about the nature of the industry at
the time (around 2000-2001),
On 8/01/12 5:02 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
simdop will need more overloads, e.g. some
instructions need immediate bytes.
z = simdop(SHUFPS, x, y, 0);
How about this:
__v128 simdop(T...)(SIMD op, T args);
These don't make a lot of sense to return as value, e.g.
__v128 a, b;
a = simdop(movhlps,
On Saturday, 7 January 2012 at 05:22:47 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 22:56:36 UTC, Vladimir
Panteleev wrote:
Now that typedef is deprecated in D2, how should libraries
that support both D1 and D2 adjust? Should it be simply
changed to an alias, or replaced
On 8 January 2012 19:56, Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.comwrote:
These don't make a lot of sense to return as value, e.g.
__v128 a, b;
a = simdop(movhlps, b); // ???
movhlps moves the top 64-bits of b into the bottom 64-bits of a. Can't be
done as an expression like this.
The
On 1/7/2012 4:40 AM, Manu wrote:
On 7 January 2012 08:40, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
If by 'better' languages, you mean D, then I completely disagree. D
*NEEDS* an IDE, just like all the rest... and in my opinion, even more
so... here are some reasons I find it so annoying there isn't a
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net wrote in message
news:mailman.185.1325982241.16222.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote in message
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:56:04 +0100, Peter Alexander
peter.alexander...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/01/12 5:02 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
simdop will need more overloads, e.g. some
instructions need immediate bytes.
z = simdop(SHUFPS, x, y, 0);
How about this:
__v128 simdop(T...)(SIMD op, T args);
On 1/8/2012 3:02 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
Does the OMF format actually support 64-bit?
Nope.
If not, we're bound to need COFF eventually.
Probably. Or elf.
On 1/8/2012 4:01 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 8/01/12 4:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2012 4:12 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
The main advantage of Lua for game code (in my opinion) is runtime
reloading,
and the ability to avoid recompiles just to test some new game logic.
That's not
so
On 1/8/2012 7:06 AM, Trass3r wrote:
IIRC Clang uses them all over the place and they did carefully design everything
for speed and memory efficiency.
Clang is a lot slower at compiling than dmc.
On 8 January 2012 21:49, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 1/8/2012 3:02 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
If not, we're bound to need COFF eventually.
Probably. Or elf.
Elf? Don't be silly. Windows needs COFF. I should be able to use the visual
studio linker.
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 00:27:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2012 6:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce
COFF?
It will be irrelevant, as the linker will read whatever it puts
out, and the linker will read COFF.
There is no
On 1/8/2012 6:14 AM, Trass3r wrote:
e.g. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 fixes severe bugs
with postblits/destructors and has been open for 4 months already without any
comment from your side.
Don knows what he's doing, and it's waiting for fixes to his observations.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:23:16 +0100, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
Just for the record, my post was intentionally excessively inflammatory.
I
do like a good IDE vs non-IDE debate! :P
On 7 January 2012 22:22, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Investing time to get familiar with emacs has been
By the way, Walter, I'm fixing druntime and Phobos makefiles
after the Shared ELF merge so they can be built as shared libs (I
have them working both now, on my FreeBSD box). I just wanna ask
you, I think it would be a good idea to remove default phobos2
linkage from dmd and move that to
Am 08.01.2012, 20:59 Uhr, schrieb Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com:
On 1/8/2012 6:14 AM, Trass3r wrote:
e.g. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 fixes
severe bugs
with postblits/destructors and has been open for 4 months already
without any
comment from your
Clang is a lot slower at compiling than dmc.
With or without optimizations?
Would be interesting to see detailed comparisons lexing/parsing/... like
http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html
Am 08.01.2012, 20:58 Uhr, schrieb q66 quake...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 00:27:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2012 6:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce COFF?
It will be irrelevant, as the linker will read whatever it
On 1/8/2012 11:46 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
True, but:
And as mentioned elsewhere, if the game logic is in plugin, like a dll, it can
be compiled/linked/loaded without touching the main code base.
On 1/7/2012 3:06 PM, Manu wrote:
A slice doesn't produce a GC allocation does it?
Nope.
I thought a slice was just a pointer-length pair. Should live on the stack/in
regs?
...so slicing static arrays shouldn't be a problem right?
Right.
What the hell is it allocating?
Surely that's
Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jebvvg$2orl$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 8/01/12 4:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2012 4:12 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
The main advantage of Lua for game code (in my opinion) is runtime
reloading,
and the ability to avoid
Am 08.01.2012, 21:04 Uhr, schrieb q66 quake...@gmail.com:
By the way, Walter, I'm fixing druntime and Phobos makefiles after the
Shared ELF merge so they can be built as shared libs (I have them
working both now, on my FreeBSD box). I just wanna ask you, I think it
would be a good idea to
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jed10v$1cf3$1...@digitalmars.com...
Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.198.1326020770.16222.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I tend to think D is considerably less simple than C,
Except for the lack of dealing with headers and
Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.198.1326020770.16222.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I tend to think D is considerably less simple than C,
Except for the lack of dealing with headers and preprocessor. And D has a
lot of other nicities that do make it simpler to use, like
Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net wrote in message
news:mailman.210.1326051013.16222.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I remember you being a frequent poster. I haven't been in years. I was
Catalyst.
Oh, yea, I remember seeing you around there a lot.
It's interesting they are still going strong
Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jed20n$1e23$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 8/01/12 8:55 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
They should both be more than fast enough in D if you're just compiling
gameplay scripts. Especially on typical game-dev machines, which are
Am 08.01.2012, 22:14 Uhr, schrieb q66 quake...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 21:10:21 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
Am 08.01.2012, 21:04 Uhr, schrieb q66 quake...@gmail.com:
By the way, Walter, I'm fixing druntime and Phobos makefiles after the
Shared ELF merge so they can be built as
On 1/8/2012 12:35 PM, Trass3r wrote:
Clang is a lot slower at compiling than dmc.
With or without optimizations?
http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html
Would be interesting to see detailed comparisons lexing/parsing/... like
http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html
On 1/8/2012 12:04 PM, q66 wrote:
By the way, Walter, I'm fixing druntime and Phobos makefiles after the Shared
ELF merge so they can be built as shared libs (I have them working both now, on
my FreeBSD box). I just wanna ask you, I think it would be a good idea to remove
default phobos2 linkage
On 1/8/2012 12:31 PM, Trass3r wrote:
I thought even dmc supports a few features.
Which one doesn't implement C++11 at all?
Each compiler does a different set of C++11 features, and it changes regularly.
It's just not a good idea now. The agony of #ifdef'ing around compiler problems
is not
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 22:50:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Would be interesting to see detailed comparisons
lexing/parsing/... like
http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html
Being faster than gcc isn't a great trick.
I didn't claim the opposite.
I was curious why dmc is faster.
On 1/8/2012 1:42 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
As an example, for me within our current code at Bungie, a single file change
in the code I usually work on can cost as much as 10mins in linking (many
targets). If I opt to build a single target (say the runtime), then this is
reduced to ~2 mins. This
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 22:52:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Once Phobos works as a shared lib, I think we should switch to
that as the default.
Please, no. That would mean standalone executables won't work
by default.
On 1/7/2012 10:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Not exactly the most informed discussion.
Well, some of their comments _ARE_ spot-on correct...
2. While you can avoid the garbage collector, that basically means you
can't use most of the standard library.
Looks pretty darn correct to me --
Someone brought an example that I thought was rather strange an
preventable in the IRC this evening. Take this example:
int[3] bob = [ 1, 2, 3];
The above will compile fine and the program may even run fine up until
the above statement. When the above statement is executed, an
exceptional
On 01/08/2012 05:33 PM, Zachary Lund wrote:
Someone brought an example that I thought was rather strange an
preventable in the IRC this evening. Take this example:
int[3] bob = [ 1, 2, 3];
The above will compile fine and the program may even run fine up until
the above statement. When the
2012/1/9 Zachary Lund ad...@computerquip.com:
On 01/08/2012 05:33 PM, Zachary Lund wrote:
Someone brought an example that I thought was rather strange an
preventable in the IRC this evening. Take this example:
int[3] bob = [ 1, 2, 3];
The above will compile fine and the program may even
Couldn't this be prevented at compile time?
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375
Not to get too far off topic, I'm the only one where I work who will use
C#. I think some people simply hate Microsoft the company so much that they
would not even fire up C# and try it once. They won't be caught liking it.
And that's seems to be the case where I work as far as I can tell.
Zachary Lund:
Couldn't this be prevented at compile time?
It should not give this error at run time. Such run-time error should be
avoided with all the energy possible.
Isn't this somewhere in Bugzilla already?
Bye,
bearophile
On 1/8/2012 6:28 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
On 1/7/2012 10:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Not exactly the most informed discussion.
Well, some of their comments _ARE_ spot-on correct...
2. While you can avoid the garbage collector, that basically means you
can't use most of the standard library.
On 1/8/2012 2:58 PM, Trass3r wrote:
I was curious why dmc is faster.
Many hours with the profiler!
On 1/8/2012 3:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 22:52:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Once Phobos works as a shared lib, I think we should switch to that as the
default.
Please, no. That would mean standalone executables won't work
by default.
People who distribute apps
Hi,
D syntax highlighting support has been added to CGDB. As far as
I am aware, there are virtually NO users of cgdb either on this
ML or in IRC (that I have spoken to) - so I'd like to make a
small oportunity to advertise this great little application that
is of priceless value for me
On 1/8/2012 4:26 PM, dsimcha wrote:
On 1/8/2012 6:28 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
2. While you can avoid the garbage collector, that basically means you
can't use most of the standard library.
Looks pretty darn correct to me -- from the fixed-size array literal
issue (literals are on the GC heap), to all
On 1/8/2012 4:38 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
D syntax highlighting support has been added to CGDB. As far as I am aware,
there are virtually NO users of cgdb either on this ML or in IRC (that I have
spoken to) - so I'd like to make a small oportunity to advertise this great
little application
On 8/01/12 11:00 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/8/2012 1:42 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
As an example, for me within our current code at Bungie, a single
file change
in the code I usually work on can cost as much as 10mins in linking (many
targets). If I opt to build a single target (say the
Manu wrote:
On 8 January 2012 08:03, F i L witte2...@gmail.com wrote:
I've got some interesting ideas on how pre-written code
packages could be
easily designer-style assembled in-editor and compiled into
efficient
native logic blocks on the fly. Only D's fast native compile
times and
Given that we're discussing game programming at the moment:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3440596
(other than SDL)
Basically something like the SFML Window module, but written in D and
working on Windoze/Linux.
On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 23:28:57 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
7. Unstable language. They're currently considering doing
things like removing delete as it's apparently deprecated
(which will officially make it not usable as an SP language).
Looks 100% correct. Removing 'delete' /does/ make D
This post should be titled, Why I fucked up by choosing Ruby
to write a game.
- Or What the fuck was I thinking
LOL.
On a completely, utterly more serious note: I've been thinking
about switching from D to LOLCODE.
On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 03:47:11 UTC, F i L wrote:
I've been thinking about switching from D to LOLCODE.
I want to do a LOLCODE ctfe converter.
mixin(LOLCODE!q{
BTW this rox
});
There were some discussions about adding namespace support with something
like extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result though.
Then there's this small patch
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4620) which allows very
interesting stuff, even simple templates. It's
On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 00:32:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Zo-mah-gawd, look at the size of those D executables! D sux!
Which happens now.
My problem with this is a shared lib actually *increases*
the size. At best, it fools you by separating it out into
two or three files instead of
Am 09.01.2012, 04:59 Uhr, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com:
On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 00:32:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Zo-mah-gawd, look at the size of those D executables! D sux!
Which happens now.
My problem with this is a shared lib actually *increases*
the size.
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:oftpypayqrnhjqkmw...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 00:32:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Zo-mah-gawd, look at the size of those D executables! D sux!
Which happens now.
My problem with this is a
Trass3r wrote:
(other than SDL)
Basically something like the SFML Window module, but written in D and
working on Windoze/Linux.
GLFW, if all you need is OpenGL (heck, even GLUT maybe).
Is there any reason, though? SDL is not dead anymore, and its API is
being rewritten with 1.3 (aka
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:wweonvdgrvkcrxcds...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 03:47:11 UTC, F i L wrote:
I've been thinking about switching from D to LOLCODE.
I want to do a LOLCODE ctfe converter.
mixin(LOLCODE!q{
BTW
On 01/09/2012 01:10 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Adam D. Ruppedestructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:wweonvdgrvkcrxcds...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 03:47:11 UTC, F i L wrote:
I've been thinking about switching from D to LOLCODE.
I want to do a
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:08:52 +0100
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
I've now moved the DWT repository to github.
Is DWT just moved its hosting or you will have some time to work on it
further?
Sincerely,
Gour
--
The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks
himself the
On 2012-01-08 15:04, Gour wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:08:52 +0100
Jacob Carlborgd...@me.com wrote:
I've now moved the DWT repository to github.
Is DWT just moved its hosting or you will have some time to work on it
further?
Sincerely,
Gour
For now the repository has just moved,
On 1/7/2012 8:54 PM, bearophile wrote:
Yes, Jonathan, you're right.
the question arose precisely from a typo... i had to remove an
item with key length... i wrote lengt and the item never went
away... i knew that lengt was not in my key list... This kind of
mistake is quite tricky, may be
On Sunday, January 08, 2012 01:39:24 Kapps wrote:
For most languages (such as C# and maybe Java), the Remove method on
collections returns a boolean indicating whether it was removed. So you
could write:
enforce(MyAA.remove(lenght))
or
bool Result = MyAA.remove(lenght);
assert(Result);
Ah, found the bug / pull request.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/597
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4523
On 08/01/2012 1:39 AM, Kapps wrote:
For most languages (such as C# and maybe Java), the Remove method on
collections returns a boolean indicating whether
On Sunday, January 08, 2012 03:24:22 Kapps wrote:
Ah, found the bug / pull request.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/597
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4523
Ah, TDPL says that it returns bool. Well, then it definitely needs to be
changed, and it's good to
On 08.01.2012 10:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 08, 2012 03:24:22 Kapps wrote:
Ah, found the bug / pull request.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/597
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4523
Ah, TDPL says that it returns bool. Well, then it
simendsjo wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to return a pointer to the item being
removed/null?
According to the docs this is the intended behavior.
-manfred
On 08.01.2012 11:09, Manfred Nowak wrote:
simendsjo wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to return a pointer to the item being
removed/null?
According to the docs this is the intended behavior.
-manfred
The only mention I can see of remove is at the top, and it doesn't state
return value:
On Sunday, January 08, 2012 11:02:41 simendsjo wrote:
On 08.01.2012 10:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 08, 2012 03:24:22 Kapps wrote:
Ah, found the bug / pull request.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/597
On 08.01.2012 11:27, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 08, 2012 11:02:41 simendsjo wrote:
On 08.01.2012 10:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 08, 2012 03:24:22 Kapps wrote:
Ah, found the bug / pull request.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/597
On 1/8/12, simendsjo simend...@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to return a pointer to the item being
removed/null?
Seems like that would be even more costly. Personally I think
returning bool is unnecessary, if we really want to know if something
is in the hash we can check with the
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
