On Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:28:15 Walter Bright wrote:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6527104
I find how many negative votes D is getting to be a bit depressing, though at
least we're doing better than C++ (percentage-wise at least). But as much as I
like D, I confess that I find th
3. This level of abstraction combined with efficient generation
cannot be currently done in any other language.
This is wrong.
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 07:10:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:28:15 Walter Bright wrote:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6527104
I find how many negative votes D is getting to be a bit
depressing, though at
least we're doing better than C++ (percent
04-Oct-2013 15:28, Brian Schott пишет:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 20:11:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I see we're considerably behind dmd. If improving performance would
come at the price of changing the API, it may be sensible to hold off
adoption for a bit.
Andrei
The old benchmark
On Friday, October 11, 2013 10:53:52 PauloPinto wrote:
> You know that according to HN folks the world belongs to Ruby,
> Go, Python, JavaScript, C. :)
Such a depressing thought...
- Jonathan M Davis
On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:56:14 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 04-Oct-2013 15:28, Brian Schott пишет:
> > On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 20:11:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> I see we're considerably behind dmd. If improving performance would
> >> come at the price of changing the API, it m
06-Oct-2013 20:07, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
On 10/6/13 5:40 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
How quickly do you think this vision could be realized? If soon, I'd say
it's worth delaying a decision on the current proposed lexer, if not ...
well, jam tomorrow, perfect is the enemy of good, and
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 01:51:09 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
Take a look at copyFiles option. It copies files e.g. dll's
into the bin directory when compiled. Although keep an option
available in e.g. a subpackage that does not do this.
For more information on what dub can do look a
08-Oct-2013 04:16, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
On 10/4/13 5:24 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
To put my money where my mouth is, I have a proof-of-concept tokenizer
for C++ in working state.
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/d07dd46d
It contains some rather unsavory bits (I'm sure a ctRegex would be nicer
f
11-Oct-2013 13:07, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:56:14 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
04-Oct-2013 15:28, Brian Schott пишет:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 20:11:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I see we're considerably behind dmd. If improving performance would
come at the
11-Oct-2013 01:41, Brian Schott пишет:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 17:34:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Excellent point! In fact one would need to use t!"<<".id instead of
t!"<<".
I'll work on that next.
Andrei
I don't suppose this new lexer is on Github or something. I'd like to
he
On 2013-10-11 03:05, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with how shared works. I'm disagreeing with the idea that
it's not supposed to be normal to cast shared away when operating on shared
objects. I expect that the most common idiom for dealing with shared is to
protect it with a lock
On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 09:01:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/9/2013 1:59 AM, JR wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 02:22:35 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
* Get Robert Schadek's precise GC in. Walter and I have
become 101% convinced
a precise GC is the one way to go about GC.
11-Oct-2013 13:52, Dmitry Olshansky пишет:
11-Oct-2013 01:41, Brian Schott пишет:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 17:34:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Excellent point! In fact one would need to use t!"<<".id instead of
t!"<<".
I'll work on that next.
Andrei
I don't suppose this new lex
02-Oct-2013 18:41, Dicebot пишет:
After brief discussion with Brian and gathering data from the review
thread, I have decided to start voting for `std.d.lexer` inclusion into
Phobos.
I'd have to answer as NO.
In order to get to a YES state, it needs:
a) Use tok!"==" notation (in line with gen
On 2013-10-11 02:51, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
At this point, I don't see how we can have thread-local pools unless casting
to and from shared has hooks for managing that. Otherwise, it's far too likely
that an object is going to be in the wrong pool, because it's being used as
shared when it was
03-Oct-2013 07:37, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
On 10/2/13 8:14 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 02:21:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/2/13 10:06 AM, Dicebot wrote:
[snip]
Or more generally cope statement at the end of a scope.
I'm cautious about that; that's why I
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 09:22:52 UTC, Chris wrote:
Yes and no. I know people who have taken or threatened to take
legal action against others because they said something like "I
don't think this is the best way to say or do it. I propose
..." Of course they will never succeed, but the h
On Friday, October 11, 2013 13:53:29 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 11-Oct-2013 13:07, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
> > On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:56:14 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> >> 04-Oct-2013 15:28, Brian Schott пишет:
> >>> On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 20:11:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
Am 11.10.2013 11:25, schrieb Sebastian Graf:
> On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 01:51:09 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>>
>> Take a look at copyFiles option. It copies files e.g. dll's into the
>> bin directory when compiled. Although keep an option available in e.g.
>> a subpackage that does not do
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 09:25:58 UTC, Sebastian Graf wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 01:51:09 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
Take a look at copyFiles option. It copies files e.g. dll's
into the bin directory when compiled. Although keep an option
available in e.g. a subpackage that
Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:04:16 -0400
schrieb "Jonathan M Davis" :
> most D programmers seem to describe when talking about shared is
> simply using __gshared with normal types, not even using shared, let
> alone using it with types specifically designed to function as
> shared. So, the most common a
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 08:53:53 UTC, PauloPinto wrote:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 07:10:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:28:15 Walter Bright wrote:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6527104
I find how many negative votes D is getting to be a bit
d
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 07:10:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:28:15 Walter Bright wrote:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6527104
I find how many negative votes D is getting to be a bit
depressing, though at
least we're doing better than C++ (percent
11-Oct-2013 14:58, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 13:53:29 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
11-Oct-2013 13:07, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:56:14 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
04-Oct-2013 15:28, Brian Schott пишет:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 20:11:02 UTC, A
On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 22:37:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/8/2013 9:22 AM, Dicebot wrote:
It is simply "@nogc" which is lacking but absolutely
mandatory.
Adding @nogc is fairly simple. The trouble, though, is (like
purity) it is transitive. Every function an @nogc function
calls
11-Oct-2013 05:21, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
On 10/10/13 5:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:55:49 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/10/13 12:33 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I honestly don't think we can solve it a different way without
completely
redesigning share
On 11/10/13 16:32, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
This. And exactly the same for immutable. It's interesting how folks totally
expect complex types (like containers) to meaningfully work with all 3
qualifiers.
It's not so much that we expect it, as that we might expect that standard
library types wo
11-Oct-2013 18:46, Joseph Rushton Wakeling пишет:
On 11/10/13 16:32, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
This. And exactly the same for immutable. It's interesting how folks
totally
expect complex types (like containers) to meaningfully work with all 3
qualifiers.
It's not so much that we expect it, as th
I'm on the phone for a while. Please contribute with info, there's a want
of information.
Dlang.org is melting.
Cheap Ex Display Kitchens For Sale In UK. Thirty Ex Display
Kitchens To Clear. £595 each with appliances
www.exdisplaykitchens1.co.uk Thirty kitchen ranges to choose from.
http://www.cheapexdisplaykitchensforsale.co.uk";>Cheap Ex
Display Kitchens For Sale In UK
[url=http://www.cheapexdisplaykitchensforsale.co.uk]Cheap Ex
Display Kitchens For Sale In UK[/url]
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 15:38:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'm on the phone for a while. Please contribute with info,
there's a want
of information.
Dlang.org is melting.
I can confirm that!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6532322
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comment
There is "Matrices and linear algebra" module in wish list. Let's
discuss its design. D is complicated language so it's difficult
to choose the right way here. We need to find compromise between
efficiency and convenient interface. I'm going to make some
suggestions how this module should look
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/77b60e32
I must start by apologizing for the bad test program, since it's
not fully minimal and requires 2 external binary files in order
to reproduce. But any files seems to suffice, my test files are
8k and the needle-file is not contained in the haystack-file.
// obj
Good idea since there is so much implementations of "fixed-width
vectors/matrices" since the beginning of times. There has been
such efforts in the past to makes it more standardized.
There will be
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 16:10:21 UTC, FreeSlave wrote:
Both templates should support all f
On Friday, 27 September 2013 at 06:49:39 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-09-26 13:39, Dicebot wrote:
No, you just let maintainers interested in target systems to
take care
of it. And package for 2-3 you care about _personally_. It is
an
obsolete idea that developer of a library/program sho
What are the plans for coalescing and optimizing away some
reference counts updates?
There is now a discussion and paper on optimizing a reference
counter:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4825
Bye,
bearophile
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:08:26 UTC, ponce wrote:
Good idea since there is so much implementations of
"fixed-width vectors/matrices" since the beginning of times.
There has been such efforts in the past to makes it more
standardized.
There will be
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 16:10:2
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 06:10:19PM +0200, FreeSlave wrote:
> There is "Matrices and linear algebra" module in wish list. Let's
> discuss its design. D is complicated language so it's difficult to
> choose the right way here. We need to find compromise between
> efficiency and convenient interface.
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 02:07:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
TDPL describes how synchronized automatically peels off the
"shared" off of direct members of the object. Unfortunately
that feature is not yet implemented.
This would help a ton. I'm still not super happy about having t
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 01:05:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 02:08:16 Sean Kelly wrote:
Shared data needs to be
treated differently, explicitly, or things go downhill fast.
I'm not disagreeing with how shared works. I'm disagreeing with
the idea that
it's n
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:46:01 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
The thing with locks is that you need to use the same lock for
all accesses to a set of mutated data or atomicity isn't
guaranteed. And if you're locking externally you don't know
what might change inside a class during a method cal
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:49:11 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 02:07:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
TDPL describes how synchronized automatically peels off the
"shared" off of direct members of the object. Unfortunately
that feature is not yet implemented.
T
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:54:12 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It should work as well with
synchronized(stuff) {
// Stuff get its first level sharing removed.
}
I still stand by the point that for guaranteed safety it must be
not simply removed but replaced with `scope` (assuming it is
finally
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 09:56:10 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
This is not really what's stopping the porting, is a problem,
but an independent one. My idea was to port the GC as it is in
Tango, and then see how to overcome its limitations.
I tried this a while back, but the GC in Drun
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:50:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
How can one possibly used "synchronized" for this in absence of
classes if desire behavior is to lock an entity, not statement
block?
I'm not sure I follow. But I was in part objecting to the use of
synchronized without a related o
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:10:27 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I was reading this :
http://dlang.org/statement.html#SynchronizedStatement
It says that Expression in sync statement must evaluate to
Object or interface and mutex get created specifically for it.
But what if I want to use struct in
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:05:00 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:50:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
How can one possibly used "synchronized" for this in absence
of classes if desire behavior is to lock an entity, not
statement block?
I'm not sure I follow. But I was in
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:18:45 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:10:27 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I was reading this :
http://dlang.org/statement.html#SynchronizedStatement
It says that Expression in sync statement must evaluate to
Object or interface and mutex get cr
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:10:27 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I was reading this :
http://dlang.org/statement.html#SynchronizedStatement
It says that Expression in sync statement must evaluate to
Object or interface and mutex get created specifically for it.
But what if I want to use struct in
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:19:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:18:45 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
Synchronize on a dummy object or use core.sync.mutex:
auto m = new Mutex;
synchronized(m) {
}
It's effectively the same as in C++ except that synchronized
saves you the t
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:22:46 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
It should. Stripping "shared" just means that you'll be able
to call any function available on the struct as opposed to only
explicitly shared functions. And the mutex gives you atomic
behavior (assuming you use the mutex properly
On 10/11/13 2:17 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
06-Oct-2013 20:07, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
On 10/6/13 5:40 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
How quickly do you think this vision could be realized? If soon, I'd say
it's worth delaying a decision on the current proposed lexer, if not ...
well, j
Am 11.10.2013 18:23, schrieb Stefan Jonasson:
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/77b60e32
I must start by apologizing for the bad test program, since it's not
fully minimal and requires 2 external binary files in order to
reproduce. But any files seems to suffice, my test files are 8k and the
needle-file is
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:49:32 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 06:10:19PM +0200, FreeSlave wrote:
There is "Matrices and linear algebra" module in wish list.
Let's
discuss its design. D is complicated language so it's
difficult to
choose the right way here. We need to fi
On Friday, October 11, 2013 16:27:53 ixid wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 22:37:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 10/8/2013 9:22 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> >> It is simply "@nogc" which is lacking but absolutely
> >> mandatory.
> >
> > Adding @nogc is fairly simple. The trouble, though, is (lik
On Friday, October 11, 2013 18:32:15 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 11-Oct-2013 05:21, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
> > Yes. Data structures that can be shared are ALWAYS designed specifically
> > for sharing, unless of course it's a trivial type like int.
>
> This. And exactly the same for immutable. It
On Friday, October 11, 2013 20:04:57 Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:50:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> > How can one possibly used "synchronized" for this in absence of
> > classes if desire behavior is to lock an entity, not statement
> > block?
>
> I'm not sure I follow. But I was
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:26:52 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:22:46 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
It should. Stripping "shared" just means that you'll be able
to call any function available on the struct as opposed to
only explicitly shared functions. And the mutex give
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 18:42:42 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Does this always happen or only when you specifiy -O?
Because I think I have a codegen bug too which only appears
when compiling with -O. It also involves a ubyte parameter.
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut
That's very interesting
You know a idea is good when it can solve a large variety of
problems and is by itself of limited complexity. I want to
propose of of these idea today.
Everything start with this paper :
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/170528/msr-tr-2012-79.pdf
The paper state how microsoft is experimenti
12-Oct-2013 00:14, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 18:32:15 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
11-Oct-2013 05:21, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
Yes. Data structures that can be shared are ALWAYS designed specifically
for sharing, unless of course it's a trivial type like int.
This. And
Also see:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k7j1ta$2kv8$1...@digitalmars.com
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k831b6$1368$1...@digitalmars.com
http://vibed.org/api/vibe.core.concurrency/makeIsolated
http://vibed.org/api/vibe.core.concurrency/lock
The last two links point to a working library based impl
On 10/11/13 7:46 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 11/10/13 16:32, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
This. And exactly the same for immutable. It's interesting how folks
totally
expect complex types (like containers) to meaningfully work with all 3
qualifiers.
It's not so much that we expect it, as
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 20:55:00 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Also see:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k7j1ta$2kv8$1...@digitalmars.com
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k831b6$1368$1...@digitalmars.com
http://vibed.org/api/vibe.core.concurrency/makeIsolated
http://vibed.org/api/vibe.core.concurren
On 10/11/13 10:28 AM, bearophile wrote:
What are the plans for coalescing and optimizing away some reference
counts updates?
There is now a discussion and paper on optimizing a reference counter:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4825
Bye,
bearophile
Yes, I think that's great work.
Andrei
Since the GC improvements are being discussed,
this might be interesting.
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=202163
--
Paulo
hg.m1xa.com/codewithd/commits/d81bfa586c7bd260afc19093fff6e42d66916860
Change-set contains two files: observer.d and event.d
Code is simple.
It would be great if this code will work without rt_... functions.
Any comments?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:49:22PM +0200, FreeSlave wrote:
> On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:49:32 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 06:10:19PM +0200, FreeSlave wrote:
> >>There is "Matrices and linear algebra" module in wish list. Let's
> >>discuss its design. D is complicated la
First thing. I see std.linarg I have no clue whatsoever what it
even may be about. Do we really want to have a standard lib with
names that look like base64 encoded ?
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 06:42:12PM +0400, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
> I accidentally discovered Andrei wrote [1] multidimensional array
> implementation is needed. If it really is, I will work to revise the
> API and prepare my implementation [2] for review if nobody is doing
> it already.
>
> Als
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:36:08AM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
> First thing. I see std.linarg I have no clue whatsoever what it even
> may be about. Do we really want to have a standard lib with names
> that look like base64 encoded ?
I picked it up immediately. It's an obvious abbreviation of "linea
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:42:17 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:36:08AM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
>> First thing. I see std.linarg I have no clue whatsoever what it even
>> may be about. Do we really want to have a standard lib with names that
>> look like base64 encoded ?
>
> I
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 02:28:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Jun 30, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> I very much want to avoid requiring atomic counts - it's a
major performance penalty. Note that if the GC is reaping a
cycle, nobody else is refe
On 10/11/13 3:42 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:36:08AM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
First thing. I see std.linarg I have no clue whatsoever what it even
may be about. Do we really want to have a standard lib with names
that look like base64 encoded ?
I picked it up immediately. I
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:13:41PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/11/13 3:42 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:36:08AM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
> >>First thing. I see std.linarg I have no clue whatsoever what it even
> >>may be about. Do we really want to have a standard
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 23:13:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Honestly I first thought it was "linear-time algorithms".
Andrei
I thought it was some kind of algae species.
Why not just call it std.algebra?
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 23:24:00 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 23:13:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Honestly I first thought it was "linear-time algorithms".
Andrei
I thought it was some kind of algae species.
Why not just call it std.algebra?
Because,
On 11/10/13 23:02, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/11/13 7:46 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
It's not so much that we expect it, as that we might expect that
standard library types would _have the appropriate design work put in_
so that they would "just work" with these qualifiers. (Admitt
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 08:55:00 UTC, Robert Schadek
wrote:
On 10/10/2013 03:45 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
Rainer Schuetze wrote:
You have to put the lock around the pair of AddRef and
Release, but if
the compiler already splits this into two function calls, this
cannot
be done in the
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 16:10:21 UTC, FreeSlave wrote:
There is "Matrices and linear algebra" module in wish list.
Let's discuss its design. D is complicated language so it's
difficult to choose the right way here. We need to find
compromise between efficiency and convenient interface. I'
On 12.10.2013 04:16, inout wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 08:55:00 UTC, Robert Schadek
wrote:
On 10/10/2013 03:45 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
Rainer Schuetze wrote:
You have to put the lock around the pair of AddRef and Release, but if
the compiler already splits this into two function
Am 11.10.2013 23:06, schrieb deadalnix:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 20:55:00 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Also see:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k7j1ta$2kv8$1...@digitalmars.com
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k831b6$1368$1...@digitalmars.com
http://vibed.org/api/vibe.core.concurrency/makeIsolated
On Saturday, 12 October 2013 at 05:20:11 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 16:10:21 UTC, FreeSlave wrote:
There is "Matrices and linear algebra" module in wish list.
Let's discuss its design. D is complicated language so it's
difficult to choose the right way here. We need to f
85 matches
Mail list logo
