On 17.03.2013 07:40, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 01:54:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/16/2013 5:24 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
But Walter seems to think this issue
not worth addressing: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9738
Not exactly. I felt:
The inline asse
On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 02:35:30 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Vladimir Panteleev" wrote in
message
news:pzqxkiigdvvicqkqa...@forum.dlang.org...
I'm trying to cut my teeth on DMD hacking with a simple
optimization (
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9477 ), but not
having much l
On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 00:24:16 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
Hi all,
Another installment in the »What does the following function
return« series:
---
int[2] foo() {
int[2] regs;
asm {
mov regs[1], 0xdeadbeef;
}
return regs;
}
---
If you answered [0, 0xdeadbeef], then congratu
import core.stdc.stdio;
interface Timer
{
final int run() { printf("Timer.run()\n"); fun(); return 1; };
int fun();
}
interface Application
{
final int run() { printf("Application.run()\n"); fun(); return 2; };
int fun();
}
class TimedApp : Timer, Application
{
int fun()
{
Yes, this is a bug.
The funny thing here is that instead TimedApp.fun(),
object.Object.toString() is called due to shift error in virtual
table offset jumping. I guess due to interfaces' ABI a class
instance isn't passed properly. Using
override string toString()
{
printf("bz
Actually it was http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4589
On 2013-03-12 01:09, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
Oops, it looks like -oq is something ldc-specific. It implements your
exact suggestion (creates a.b.c.obj instead of c.obj or a/b/c.obj).
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3541
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2013-03-10 11:27, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
The better option would be to pass all source files to update in one
invocation of dmd, so it won't get slower than a full rebuild, but this
has been plagued with linker errors in the past (undefined and duplicate
symbols). If it works, it could identi
On 2013-03-10 16:44, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
I think this is a serious problem. I hadn't thought of it before, but if
we are designing our tools to work around implementation issues in the
compiler, I think we're doing something wrong. Rather than meddling with
a crippled incremental compilati
On 3/17/13, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Search for posts by Tomasz Stachowiak (h3r3tic). He tried to implement
> incremental compilation a couple of years ago.
https://bitbucket.org/h3r3tic/xfbuild/issue/7/make-incremental-building-reliable
On 3/17/13, Peter Alexander wrote:
> auto in D actually just means "I don't want to use any other storage class"
>From the user's perspective auto means more:
int x;
ref refRet() { return x; } // ok
ref refRet() { return 1; } // disallowed
auto ref autoRet() { return x; } // ok
auto ref auto
On Saturday, 16 March 2013 at 22:34:01 UTC, Michael wrote:
Why Dmd accepts?
class E
{
@property public static pro(Object v)
{
}
}
My guess is this: If it takes an argument (Object v) I assume it
is a *setter*, so it does not need to return anything. Then, the
non-written type i
On 03/17/13 19:48, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 3/17/13, Peter Alexander wrote:
>> auto in D actually just means "I don't want to use any other storage class"
>
>>From the user's perspective auto means more:
>
> int x;
> ref refRet() { return x; } // ok
> ref refRet() { return 1; } // disallowe
On Tuesday, 5 February 2008 at 06:28:04 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
AFAICT, there's nothing in LINQ that D couldn't (in theory*) do
with a library -- today implemented using ctfe and mixins, in
future with the front end replaced by macros.
IMHO, LINQ is a classic example of something that should
On 2/3/2008 1:07 AM, bearophile wrote:
LINQ (and its future parallel extensions), with its additional syntax, may be a
good thing to add to D:
http://www.moserware.com/2008/02/for-loops-using-i-i-enumerators-or-none.html
You can use the same syntax to simplify parallel code, DB access code, etc
There seems to be disagreement between various users on the propriety of
trackers. These are bug reports that don't describe a single bug, nor a
feature request, but are used to group together related issues.
Trackers (also known as meta bugs or umbrella bugs) are used heavily on
Mozilla's ow
On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 21:00:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/3/2008 1:07 AM, bearophile wrote:
LINQ (and its future parallel extensions), with its additional
syntax, may be a good thing to add to D:
http://www.moserware.com/2008/02/for-loops-using-i-i-enumerators-or-none.html
You can us
On 3/17/13, Artur Skawina wrote:
> That's because "auto ref" is a hack.
> IOW "auto ref" != "auto" + "ref", just as "static if" != "static" + "if".
Both auto and auto ref are documented features, type inference with
any storage class is not a documented feature.
The current signatures for opCmp/opEqual mean that code like:
bool strictly_ordered(T)(in T[] list) {
for (auto j = 1; j < list.length; j++) {
if (list[j - 1] >= list[j])
return false;
}
return true;
}
will fail to compile if T is a class because opCmp cannot be
On 3/17/2013 2:59 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 21:00:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/3/2008 1:07 AM, bearophile wrote:
LINQ (and its future parallel extensions), with its additional syntax, may be
a good thing to add to D:
http://www.moserware.com/2008/02/for-loop
On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 23:55:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/17/2013 2:59 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 21:00:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/3/2008 1:07 AM, bearophile wrote:
LINQ (and its future parallel extensions), with its
additional syntax, may be
a
On 03/18/2013 12:19 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
The current signatures for opCmp/opEqual mean that code like:
bool strictly_ordered(T)(in T[] list) {
for (auto j = 1; j < list.length; j++) {
if (list[j - 1] >= list[j])
return false;
}
return true;
}
will fail
On 03/18/2013 01:16 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/18/2013 12:19 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
The current signatures for opCmp/opEqual mean that code like:
bool strictly_ordered(T)(in T[] list) {
for (auto j = 1; j < list.length; j++) {
if (list[j - 1] >= list[j])
return f
On Monday, March 18, 2013 01:20:40 Timon Gehr wrote:
> >> So my question is "Why are the arguments to opEquals and opCmp (for
> >> Objects) not declared in or const?".
> >
> > Because not all valid implementations can be. They shouldn't be in
> > Object anyway.
Yeah. It was agreed that opCmp, opE
On 17/03/2013 23:19, Peter Williams wrote:
So my question is "Why are the arguments to opEquals and opCmp (for Objects)
not declared
in or const?".
Known bug.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1824
This was reported 5 years ago, and it's a serious issue, so I don't know why it's
On Monday, 18 March 2013 at 00:46:46 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 17/03/2013 23:19, Peter Williams wrote:
So my question is "Why are the arguments to opEquals and opCmp
(for Objects) not declared
in or const?".
Known bug.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1824
I did look in
On 18/03/2013 00:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 01:20:40 Timon Gehr wrote:
So my question is "Why are the arguments to opEquals and opCmp (for
Objects) not declared in or const?".
Because not all valid implementations can be. They shouldn't be in
Object anyway.
Yeah. I
On Monday, 18 March 2013 at 00:16:17 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/18/2013 12:19 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
The current signatures for opCmp/opEqual mean that code like:
bool strictly_ordered(T)(in T[] list) {
for (auto j = 1; j < list.length; j++) {
if (list[j - 1] >= list[j])
With the new -cov=nnn (not pulled yet) and -main, we can now add to the build
process a minimum bar for unit test coverage.
The current state looks like this, the percentages are the current coverage
amounts. It's not bad, but there's a lot of low hanging fruit ready for pull
requests!
From
On Monday, March 18, 2013 00:53:52 Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Why would some class want to implement these methods in a way that alters
> the object?
Because const in D is physical const, not logical const. So, for instance,
const prevents caching. And it's quite possible that a type which really ca
On Monday, March 18, 2013 02:00:37 Peter Williams wrote:
> Can't those (rare) implementations just do a non constant cast
> when they cast Object to their desired class?
No. In D, casting away const on an object and mutating it is undefined
behavior.
- Jonathan M Davis
On 03/17/2013 05:03 PM, Kapps wrote:
As for the implementation of lambdas to generate SQL queries and the
like, there was a pull request for a __traits(codeof) that could have
been used to do such a thing. Unfortunately, there were issues with it
in some fundamental way, and it was scrapped. A _
On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 22:11:27 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/17/13, Artur Skawina wrote:
That's because "auto ref" is a hack.
IOW "auto ref" != "auto" + "ref", just as "static if" !=
"static" + "if".
Both auto and auto ref are documented features, type inference
with
any storage
In article , acehr...@yahoo.com says...
>
> On 03/01/2013 01:51 PM, Paul D. Anderson wrote:
>
> > In UTF-8 the "middle dot", ('•', \u00B7) and
> > "multiplication sign", ('×', \u00D7)
>
> [...]
>
> > UTF-16 has many more mathematical symbols
>
> Sorry to pick on this unrelated issue but UTF
34 matches
Mail list logo
