On Jul 1, 2013 7:16 AM, "dennis luehring" wrote:
>
> Am 01.07.2013 03:07, schrieb Kapps:
>
>> If you're concerned about performance, I'd recommend against
>> using DMD for your release builds. GDC and LDC will give much
>> better performance, and GDC works perfectly fine on Windows. LDC
>> has som
On 2013-07-01 03:43, JS wrote:
But yet absolutely useless and does nothing over using a field directly.
The advantage is that you get virtual methods. I also think it should be
possible to manually implement just the setter, or getter. The compiler
would only generate what's not already pres
On 2013-07-01 01:14, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think memory usage is still important. Many people don't consider
that their computer is running hundreds of programs at a time. If each
one of those "didn't care" about memory usage, the one that you are
currently interested in would not have
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:51:53 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:38:20 UTC, JS wrote:
well duh, but it is quite a simple mathematical problem and
your counter-example is not one at all.
For a statically typed language all types must be known at
compile time... so you can'
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 09:31:04 UTC, JS wrote:
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:51:53 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:38:20 UTC, JS wrote:
well duh, but it is quite a simple mathematical problem and
your counter-example is not one at all.
For a statically typed language all
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:11:20 UTC, dennis luehring wrote:
Am 01.07.2013 03:07, schrieb Kapps:
If you're concerned about performance, I'd recommend against
using DMD for your release builds. GDC and LDC will give much
better performance, and GDC works perfectly fine on Windows.
LDC
has som
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 20:26:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10147
This problem is because the compiler processes warnings too
early. If the is expression issues only warnings, it probably
should succeed, because those warnings don't escape
On 1 July 2013 11:18, Gabi wrote:
> On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:11:20 UTC, dennis luehring wrote:
>>
>> Am 01.07.2013 03:07, schrieb Kapps:
>>>
>>> If you're concerned about performance, I'd recommend against
>>> using DMD for your release builds. GDC and LDC will give much
>>> better performance
Am 01.07.2013 10:14, schrieb Iain Buclaw:
On Jul 1, 2013 7:16 AM, "dennis luehring" wrote:
Am 01.07.2013 03:07, schrieb Kapps:
If you're concerned about performance, I'd recommend against
using DMD for your release builds. GDC and LDC will give much
better performance, and GDC works perfectl
On 1 July 2013 12:02, dennis luehring wrote:
> Am 01.07.2013 10:14, schrieb Iain Buclaw:
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2013 7:16 AM, "dennis luehring" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 01.07.2013 03:07, schrieb Kapps:
>>>
If you're concerned about performance, I'd recommend against
using DMD for your release bui
On 1 July 2013 12:38, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 1 July 2013 12:02, dennis luehring wrote:
>> Am 01.07.2013 10:14, schrieb Iain Buclaw:
>>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2013 7:16 AM, "dennis luehring" wrote:
Am 01.07.2013 03:07, schrieb Kapps:
> If you're concerned about performance, I'd r
"bearophile" wrote in message
news:aknmrnhodledtmfyp...@forum.dlang.org...
> Dicebot:
>
>> Can you link his comment? That sounds weird.
>
> It was years ago, maybe more than three years ago. It's not easy to find.
> I have found discussions about this topic, but not comments from Walter:
>
> htt
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 09:14:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-07-01 01:14, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think memory usage is still important. Many people don't
consider
that their computer is running hundreds of programs at a time.
If each
one of those "didn't care" about memory us
On 6/30/13 7:39 PM, JS wrote:
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 19:18:13 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 6/27/13 9:34 PM, JS wrote:
Would it be possible for a language(specifically d) to have the ability
to automatically type a variable by looking at its use cases without
adding too much complexity?
On 6/30/13 10:30 PM, JS wrote:
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 01:08:49 UTC, Kenji Hara wrote:
2013/7/1 JS
I am simply talking about having the compiler enlarge the type if
needed.
(this is mainly for built in types since the type hierarchy is
explicitly
known)
Just a simple matter, it would *dr
On 6/30/13 10:56 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/01/2013 03:08 AM, Kenji Hara wrote:
2013/7/1 JS mailto:js.m...@gmail.com>>
I am simply talking about having the compiler enlarge the type if
needed. (this is mainly for built in types since the type hierarchy
is explicitly known)
Just a
> My 4 gig machine needs swap space... just to surf on internet.
>
> I think one of the biggest culprits are not the programs, but today's
> *shiny* and *exciting* websites...
Wow!
Then you must be running Windows...
I have currently 1.5Gb used, with ~30 tabs open, Kdevelop, a few
terminals and
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 14:11:50 UTC, David wrote:
My 4 gig machine needs swap space... just to surf on internet.
I think one of the biggest culprits are not the programs, but
today's
*shiny* and *exciting* websites...
Wow!
Then you must be running Windows...
I have currently 1.5Gb used,
On 07/01/2013 03:44 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 6/30/13 10:56 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/01/2013 03:08 AM, Kenji Hara wrote:
2013/7/1 JS mailto:js.m...@gmail.com>>
I am simply talking about having the compiler enlarge the type if
needed. (this is mainly for built in types since the
On 7/1/2013 6:39 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
This is not what I am talking about and it seems quite dangerous to have
one variable name masquerade as multiple variables.
Why dangerous?
D already disallows:
int x;
{ float x;
}
as an error-prone construct, so why should it allow:
On 06/30/2013 08:54 PM, JS wrote:
> On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 02:17:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> I have the complete opposite view: Seeing what m_data explicitly in
>> the code would be simpler than reading code to see that data.value
>> would mean implicit storage.
>>
>
> huh? There is absolut
On 7/1/13 1:15 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/1/2013 6:39 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
This is not what I am talking about and it seems quite dangerous to have
one variable name masquerade as multiple variables.
Why dangerous?
D already disallows:
int x;
{ float x;
}
as an er
On 7/1/13 1:45 PM, John Colvin wrote:
T)(T var)
{
auto myVar = var.to!string;
//do something with myVar string
}
Ah, that's also ok. But then you have to remember to use myVar instead
of var.
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 16:33:56 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
I'll give you an example:
# var can be an Int or String
def foo(var)
var = var.to_s
# do something with var, which is now guaranteed to be a
string
end
I can call it like this:
foo(1)
foo("hello")
If I had to put types, I w
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:28:57 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 02:53:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, July 01, 2013 04:37:43 Mehrdad wrote:
On Sunday, 30 June 2013 at 20:49:28 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
> sometimes faster
Would love an example that demonstra
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 16:15:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/1/2013 6:39 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
This is not what I am talking about and it seems quite
dangerous to have
one variable name masquerade as multiple variables.
Why dangerous?
D already disallows:
int x;
{ float
On 7/1/2013 9:46 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 7/1/13 1:45 PM, John Colvin wrote:
T)(T var)
{
auto myVar = var.to!string;
//do something with myVar string
}
Ah, that's also ok. But then you have to remember to use myVar instead of var.
Heck, why bother with different variable names
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 16:46:57 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 7/1/13 1:45 PM, John Colvin wrote:
T)(T var)
{
auto myVar = var.to!string;
//do something with myVar string
}
Ah, that's also ok. But then you have to remember to use myVar
instead of var.
Personally I like the explic
On 07/01/2013 06:15 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/1/2013 6:39 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
This is not what I am talking about and it seems quite dangerous to have
one variable name masquerade as multiple variables.
Why dangerous?
D already disallows:
int x;
{ float x;
}
as
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 16:46:57 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Ah, that's also ok. But then you have to remember to use myVar
instead of var.
I have wanted to remove a variable from scope before. I think it
would be kinda cool if we could do something like __undefine(x),
and subsequent uses o
Thanks Manu, I think I understand. Quick questions, so I've
updated my test to allow for loop unrolling
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/12933bc8 as the calculation is done over an
array of elements and does not depend on the last operation. My
problem is that the program reports using 0 time. However, as
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 16:24:40 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 06/30/2013 08:54 PM, JS wrote:
> On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 02:17:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> I have the complete opposite view: Seeing what m_data
explicitly in
>> the code would be simpler than reading code to see that
data.value
Don't feed the troll.
On 7/1/2013 9:57 AM, JS wrote:
The problem is when such a "idea" is present you get people who are
automatically against it for various irrational fears and they won't take any
serious look at it to see if it has any merit... If you jump to the conclusion
that something is useless without any re
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 16:57:53 UTC, JS wrote:
(the above example is at the heart of the matter... regardless
if it is probably a valid semantic in D or easily to
implement(since no one knows and most don't care because they
think it won't benefit them(just like how bill gates thought
all e
On 7/1/2013 10:07 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
module b;
int x;
module a;
void main(){
int x;
{
import b;
x = 2;
I'd encourage you to submit an enhancement request that would produce the
message:
Error: import b.x hides local declaration of x
}
import std.st
On 7/1/2013 10:51 AM, deadalnix wrote:
But if you one very stupid one, I declared in the late 90s that a phone with a
tactile screen on its whole surface was a stupid idea and that it would never
work.
I you look hard enough, I guess we all said the most stupid thing at some point.
We got to adm
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 17:51:02 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 16:57:53 UTC, JS wrote:
(the above example is at the heart of the matter... regardless
if it is probably a valid semantic in D or easily to
implement(since no one knows and most don't care because they
think it
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 17:19:02 UTC, Jonathan Dunlap wrote:
Thanks Manu, I think I understand. Quick questions, so I've
updated my test to allow for loop unrolling
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/12933bc8
The loop body in testSimd doesn't do anything. This line:
auto di = d[i];
copies the vector, i
Yet one small observation: This optimization would mean that a
lot of the use cases of "auto ref const MyType" parameters (the
upcoming non-templated auto ref feature... although I don't know
if that's the syntax for it) could be replaced by using "const
MyType" parameters.
Or, if you look at
On 07/01/2013 10:51 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> I declared in the late 90s that a phone
> with a tactile screen on its whole surface was a stupid idea and that it
> would never work.
I still think so. :D
Ali
Thanks Jerro, I went ahead and used a pointer reference to ensure
it's being saved back into the array
(http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/52710926). Two things:
1) still showing zero time delta
2) On windows 7 x74, using a SAMPLE_AT size of 3 or higher
will cause the program to immediately quit with no
On 7/1/13 9:59 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just don't get the notion that it's a
burden to use a different name for a variable that has a different type
and a different purpose. I'd go further and say it is a bad practice to
use the same name for such.
Reducing the num
On 7/1/13 9:57 AM, JS wrote:
I think there is big confusion in what I'm "suggesting"(it's not a
proposal because I don't expect anyone to take the time to prove its
validity... and you can't know how useful it could be if you don't have
any way to test it out).
It's two distinctly different conc
On 7/1/2013 4:30 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yes, and in fact it's already done. Consider:
if (expr)
{
int a;
...
}
else
{
int b;
...
}
In some C implementations, a and b have the same physical address. In some
others, they have distinct addresses. This appears to not be
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 23:30:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/1/13 9:57 AM, JS wrote:
I think there is big confusion in what I'm "suggesting"(it's
not a
proposal because I don't expect anyone to take the time to
prove its
validity... and you can't know how useful it could be if you
d
On 7/1/13 6:29 PM, JS wrote:
Would would be nice is an experimental version of D where would could
easily extend the language to try out such concepts to see if they truly
are useful and how difficult to implement. e.g., I could attempt to add
said "feature", it could be merged with the experimen
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 02:15:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/1/13 6:29 PM, JS wrote:
Would would be nice is an experimental version of D where
would could
easily extend the language to try out such concepts to see if
they truly
are useful and how difficult to implement. e.g., I coul
On 07/01/2013 07:35 PM, JS wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 02:15:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> auto a = 2.5; // fine, a is double
>> ...
>> a = 3;
>>
>
> No, not under what I am talking about. You can't downgrade a type, only
> upgrade it. a = 3, a is still a float. Using the concept
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 03:17:58 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/01/2013 07:35 PM, JS wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 02:15:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
>> auto a = 2.5; // fine, a is double
>> ...
>> a = 3;
>>
>
> No, not under what I am talking about. You can't downgrade a
type, on
Maybe make the arrays public? it's conceivable the optimiser could
eliminate all that code, since it can prove the results are never
referenced...
I doubt that's the problem though, just a first guess.
On 2 July 2013 09:14, Jonathan Dunlap wrote:
> Thanks Jerro, I went ahead and used a pointer r
> It's location in the class my not be the same but that is, in
> general, irrelevant unless you are messing with the bits of
the class.
Actually we do this a lot in C++ where I work to ensure proper
alignment. We are also starting to do this in D where we have C++
<-> D bindings so we can m
On 7/1/13 7:35 PM, JS wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 02:15:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/1/13 6:29 PM, JS wrote:
Would would be nice is an experimental version of D where would could
easily extend the language to try out such concepts to see if they truly
are useful and how difficu
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
There are very good reasons not to do this, even if possible.
Especially if the type can change.
+1
This sort of inference can only lead to problems down the line,
IMO.
54 matches
Mail list logo
