On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:39:15 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
can't link it. GNU/Linux, x86, latest DMD from git.
lib/libd.a(semantic.o): In function
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 17:34:07 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
GDC's revamped site is now live!
http://gdcproject.org
Techy details for those who are interested:
- Uses vibe.d as the web engine.
- Pages are written in markdown and compiled at runtime
(separate thread that watches for file
On 7/31/2014 5:51 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
DMD v2.066.0-rc1 binaries are available for testing:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
Thank you again, Andrew!
On 1 August 2014 10:04, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 17:34:07 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
GDC's revamped site is now live!
http://gdcproject.org
Techy details for those who are interested:
- Uses vibe.d as
hmm it looks like you are not linking llvm in ...
do you use the most recent version from my sdc32-experimental
repo ?
please not that the dub build is broken because i can't get the
link order right.
so you have to `make` it :D
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:07:56 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
hmm it looks like you are not linking llvm in ...
but i am. %-) or, better to say, your makefile doing it with
`llvm-config --libs`.
do you use the most recent version from my
please do `git pull` and if the error presists post the full
error-message on dpaste or similar.
Are you on a 64bit system ?
my makesfiles are hardcoded to use -m32
so I guess it will not link with 64bit libs
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:33:05 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
please do `git pull` and if the error presists post the full
error-message on dpaste or similar.
you're welcome.
upgated to git commit 58a36a1acdc6b9a5bcd07edf69b958c3b4ac1657
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:40:31 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
Are you on a 64bit system ?
no, i said somewhere in the previous messages that i'm using x86 arch.
%-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 15:26:08 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
yes, just cloned it before sending report.
commit 34fdd6a73e6137173a3840218a76dfd2f6c50d68
Hmm I can't find commit 34fdd6a73e6137173a3840218a76dfd2f6c50d68
...
it must have a commit I have squashed.
I do this
I can say it has nothing todo with llvm (so far)
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:54:42 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
AFAICS this it because you are using dmd-master
if it fails with the dmd-2.065 then I have a real nut to crack
sorry, you are right. downgrading to dmd-2.065 fixes the build.
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 16:31:49 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:54:42 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
AFAICS this it because you are using dmd-master
if it fails with the dmd-2.065 then I have a
Ali Çehreli:
Ali Çehreli's (first speaker) slides are at
http://acehreli.org/AliCehreli_assumptions.pdf
It's a nice slides pack. Now in Phobos there's also assumeUTF
(https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10162 ).
See also:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9682
It
Next time you might want to use my jsonRunner
it runs 7.5x times faster than the old one :D
thogh it needs a bit more work
enableing multihtreading and such
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:58:58 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
enableing multihtreading and such
i explititely passes runner.d -j1 (other cores has work to do too %-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
first run time ./runner
and then run
sh buildTester.sh ./convtest
and then time ./jsonRunner
i am intressted in your timings
runner d envokes the sdc binary
while jsonRunner is linked with sdc
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 22:16:50 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
sh buildTester.sh
alas, i have no LLVMArchive, and it refuses to link without it. when i
removed -L-lLLVMArchive, it says that
On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 01:37:33 +0300
ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
damn, it's hard to switch between two dmds. ok, i compiled everything,
here's the timings:
./runner 2 /dev/null /dev/null 21.39s user 1.48s system 146% cpu 15.643
total
./jsonRunner
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 22:44:48 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 01:37:33 +0300
ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
damn, it's hard to switch between two dmds. ok, i compiled
everything,
here's the timings:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 23:16:43 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
Thanks for your cooperation!
you're welcome. %-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 09:02:23 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:39:15 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
can't link it. GNU/Linux, x86, latest DMD from git.
lib/libd.a(semantic.o): In function
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 21:29:59 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 21:11:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 1:52 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Could you expand on what you consider input?
All state processed by the program that comes from outside the
program. That
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:52:15 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
What about T[] is _not_ a dynamic array?
Now that I've done this exercise I can answer more crisply:
When T[] is an lvalue, it behaves like a reference, not a
dynamic array.
So the fact that it slices rather than copies is
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 06:11:58 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
Scherkl wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 05:55:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I'm completely opposed to changing the official terminology.
Why?
What buys it, to have two terms slice and dynamic array if
they mean exactly the
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 02:44:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That entry makes no mention of assert being used as an
optimization hint.
Saying that a predicate is always true means it's available to
the optimizer.
An assert does not say that the predicate is always true. It says
that this
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 21:47:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
There's a pretty negative article about disqus making the
rounds:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2c19of/your_users_deserve_better_than_disqus/
Since we're considering adding disqus flow to our docs, we
better
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 02:46:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 1:36 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 19:12:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Integers are sortable, period. That is not input.
Ok so sorted ints are not input, what else is not input?
Where can I draw
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 06:24:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
DESIGN BY CONTRACT
BTW, there is an emerging field program synthesis that is based
on Design by contract where the compiler automatically generates
code that takes you from preconditions to postconditions and
verifies it
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 03:43:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/29/2014 2:47 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There's a pretty negative article about disqus making the
rounds:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2c19of/your_users_deserve_better_than_disqus/
Since we're
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 19:31:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The whole type is templated, so the assertions will be compiled
in based on whether the user's code is compiled with -released
or not.
Sounds tricky. Doesn't the compiler optimize template
instantiation? If it finds an
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 06:53:17 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 19:31:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The whole type is templated, so the assertions will be
compiled in based on whether the user's code is compiled with
-released or not.
Sounds tricky. Doesn't the
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I do agree tagged unions should be pushed into the language;
they'd help the GC.
A more general solution is to add a onGC() optional method that
gets called by the GC on collections, and tells it what's inside
the union.
Bye,
bearophile
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 01:20:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 3:07 PM, David Bregman wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 18:58:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 4:28 AM, David Bregman wrote:
Sigh. Of course you can assume the condition after a runtime
check has been
Going through other .dd files, I found an error in expression.dd.
It says For static or dynamic arrays, identity is defined as
referring
to the same array elements and the same number of elements.
Well, in fact:
unittest {
// expression.dd says that equality AND IDENTITY compare
elements
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 21:29:59 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
So effectively, any factor occurring at runtime. If I create a
library, it is acceptable to validate function parameters using
assert() because the user of that library knows what the library
expects and should write their code
Pull request:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/623
fyi, I will be away for 3 weeks, mostly unavailable but
may be able to respond occasionally.
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 06:18:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 06:11:58 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
Scherkl wrote:
[...]
should go in the official terminology. (otherwise we would
need a new, third term to describe the other thing that is
not directly accessible in
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 03:17:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
In fact, the whole reason assert is a core language feature
rather than
a library notion is I was anticipating making use of assert
for
optimization hints.
So why is this not documented?
Frankly, it never occurred to me that it
John Colvin:
This is enough to convince me.
Please don't feed Walter.
Bye,
bearophile
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 07:51:32 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Going through other .dd files, I found an error in
expression.dd.
It says For static or dynamic arrays, identity is defined as
referring
to the same array elements and the same number of elements.
Well, in fact:
unittest {
On 7/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 02:44:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That entry makes no mention of assert being used as an optimization hint.
Saying that a predicate is always true means it's available to the
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 04:12:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 2:21 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Thoughts?
If a process detects a logic error, then that process is in an
invalid state that is unanticipated and unknown to the
developer. The only correct solution is to halt that
On 8/1/2014 1:31 AM, John Colvin wrote:
Don't want the optimiser to use the information from your asserts when the
asserts are gone?
You can always do:
version(assert) { if (!exp) halt(); }
and in -release mode, the compiler won't assume that exp is true. Or, more
simply, just write your
On 8/1/2014 1:43 AM, bearophile wrote:
John Colvin:
This is enough to convince me.
Please don't feed Walter.
I don't care if you make such remarks about me, but I do care about the level of
discourse in the forum sinking to such levels. Please refrain from such.
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
- GDC's homepage is now getting a UI update.
Staging area for the new look is found here:
http://staging.dgnu.org
I think the old logo was better. The new one looks weird, like it
was unfinished.
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 03:58:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
If you look at the Wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assertion_(software_development)
you'll see a more high level view of what assert is all about,
rather than a worm's eye view the C standard takes. (It even
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 22:21:46 UTC, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 31.07.2014 23:59, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 7/31/2014 10:40 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
It's a major PITA to debug problems that only happen in
release builds.
Debugging optimized code was a well known problem even back in
the
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 09:02:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
An assert does not say that the predicate is always true.
Yes, it does. From Meyers' comprehensive tome on the topic
Object-Oriented Software Construction (1997) where he writes:
A
Is it possible to compare at compile time an element from a
TypeTuple with another type?
This code fails:
alias T = Tuple!(int, bool);
static assert(is(T[0] == int));
Error: static assert (is(Tuple!(int, bool)[0] == int)) is
false
Tudor
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:25:39 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
Is it possible to compare at compile time an element from a
TypeTuple with another type?
This code fails:
alias T = Tuple!(int, bool);
static assert(is(T[0] == int));
Error: static assert (is(Tuple!(int, bool)[0] ==
Walter Bright:
I don't care if you make such remarks about me, but I do care
about the level of discourse in the forum sinking to such
levels. Please refrain from such.
Yes sorry, I have lost my temper when you have written Or
perhaps some people are just being argumentative. I can't really
Am Fri, 01 Aug 2014 07:01:48 +
schrieb Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com:
Since all template instantiations must happen when you compile
your program rather than in any libraries you're linking against,
why would it matter? If you compile your program without
That's not true,
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 09:02:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 02:44:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That entry makes no mention of assert being used as an
optimization hint.
Saying
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:42:50 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 09:02:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 02:44:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That entry makes no
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 15:41:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Then you have the globals write and writef which will compete
with those in std.stdio. -- Andrei
Aren't they from different overload sets?
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 04:51:06 UTC, eles wrote:
assert(0) is a special contract that requires no code for its
verification, as it obviously fails. This is why the compiler
will always make it a halting point, in all builds.
This is wrong. As I have shown over in the other thread, the
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:25:39 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
Is it possible to compare at compile time an element from a
TypeTuple with another type?
This code fails:
alias T = Tuple!(int, bool);
static assert(is(T[0] == int));
Error: static assert (is(Tuple!(int, bool)[0] ==
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 09:02:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 02:44:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That entry makes no mention of assert being used as an
optimization hint.
Saying
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:34:02 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:25:39 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
Is it possible to compare at compile time an element from a
TypeTuple with another type?
This code fails:
alias T = Tuple!(int, bool);
static assert(is(T[0]
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 11:39:27 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:25:39 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
Is it possible to compare at compile time an element from a
TypeTuple with another type?
This code fails:
alias T = Tuple!(int, bool);
static assert(is(T[0] ==
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 11:55:02 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:34:02 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:25:39 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
Is it possible to compare at compile time an element from a
TypeTuple with another type?
This code
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 12:08:23 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 11:55:02 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:34:02 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg
wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:25:39 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
Is it possible to compare at compile time
Am 01.08.2014 12:03, schrieb Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
A compiler is a program that turns code in one programming language to
equivalent machine code, according to a language specification. There
are obviously many different equivalent machine code programs
corresponding to any sufficiently
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 04:51:06 UTC, eles wrote:
While in Debug mode
Generally decent, but I don't agree that the absence of -release
implies debug mode.
-Wyatt
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 21:11:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 1:52 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Could you expand on what you consider input?
All state processed by the program that comes from outside the
program. That would include:
1. user input
2. the file system
3. uninitialized
Johannes Pfau wrote in message news:lrfqqt$1jem$1...@digitalmars.com...
Which symbols are
actually used in the final executable is up to the linker and not
standardized.
Isn't it? dmd will set it up so the definitions in the library will only
get pulled in if undefined, and this will
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 11:53:28 UTC, Don wrote:
I think very strongly that we should rename the -release
switch, especially if we do start to make use of asserts. It's
going to cause no end of confusion and passionate debate.
Pretty much summary of both threads.
Daniel Gibson wrote in message news:lrg0k5$1nl1$1...@digitalmars.com...
I'd prefer language specifications *not* to include such parts.
C wouldn't be any worse without the you can eliminate writes to code
that's not read afterwards part, for example.
Of course it would, that's why that's in
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 01:41:40 UTC, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Yep, also a good point.
(Actually it's 187 -f* options, the rest is -O* which can't be
combined of course and some of them most probably imply many of
the -f* switches, but it'll still be an unmanageable/untestable
amount of
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 11:53:28 UTC, Don wrote:
The arguments presented by Ola et al mostly seem to be
arguments against the use of the -release switch. Because it is
No, I think I do understand where Walter is coming from now. I
remember some of the incomprehensible lectures I attended
On 01/08/2014 10:15 AM, tn wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
- GDC's homepage is now getting a UI update.
Staging area for the new look is found here:
http://staging.dgnu.org
I think the old logo was better. The new one looks weird, like it was
unfinished.
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 11:55:02 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:34:02 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 10:25:39 UTC, Tudor Berariu wrote:
Is it possible to compare at compile time an element from a
TypeTuple with another type?
This code
Am 01.08.2014 05:17, schrieb Walter Bright:
Frankly, it never occurred to me that it wasn't obvious. When something
is ASSERTED to be true, then it is available to the optimizer. After
all, that is what optimizers do - rewrite code into a mathematically
equivalent form that is provably the same
Am 01.08.2014 05:27, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 7/31/2014 1:11 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
I guess in many cases I'd avoid using assert() in fear of breaking my
defensively written program (like that example from earlier: assert(x
!is null);
if(x) { x.foo = 42; }).
I just hang my head in my hands
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 08:21:28 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 21:29:59 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
So effectively, any factor occurring at runtime. If I create a
library, it is acceptable to validate function parameters using
assert() because the user of that library knows
On 1 August 2014 10:15, tn via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
- GDC's homepage is now getting a UI update.
Staging area for the new look is found here:
http://staging.dgnu.org
I think the old logo was better.
On 08/01/2014 03:26 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/31/14, 5:35 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/31/2014 06:23 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/31/14, 6:03 AM, w0rp wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 11:42:21 UTC, Remo wrote:
http://tech.esper.com/2014/07/30/algebraic-data-types/
D
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 14:10:14 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
Druntime uses contracts and asserts in places. Which are of
course removed because we ship only a release build. Once
again, the worst naming for a compiler switch ever. What I
really want is a way to ship release and non-release
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 07:01:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Since all template instantiations must happen when you compile
your program rather than in any libraries you're linking
against, why would it matter?
AFAIK, there's no distinction between a library and a program in
D, only
On 7/31/14, 11:40 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I think that even if we were to decide that we wanted a documentation
comment system and we wanted it to have the feature set that Disqus
does, we should either find another, existing system which has those
features but not the tracking, or we should
On 8/1/14, 12:40 AM, David Bregman wrote:
It's not a position. I'm just giving you the definition of assume so
you can understand the difference from assert.
After reading your posts I still can't understand what your definition
of assume is. Here's what I found:
assert:
is a runtime check
On 8/1/14, 1:43 AM, bearophile wrote:
John Colvin:
This is enough to convince me.
Please don't feed Walter.
This is offensive on more than one level. -- Andrei
On 8/1/14, 4:00 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 15:41:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Then you have the globals write and writef which will compete with
those in std.stdio. -- Andrei
Aren't they from different overload sets?
Doesn't seem to me. They all accept e.g. one
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 15:05:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 8/1/14, 4:00 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 15:41:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Then you have the globals write and writef which will compete
with
those in std.stdio. -- Andrei
Aren't they from
Am Fri, 1 Aug 2014 23:20:02 +1000
schrieb Daniel Murphy yebbliesnos...@gmail.com:
Johannes Pfau wrote in message
news:lrfqqt$1jem$1...@digitalmars.com...
Which symbols are
actually used in the final executable is up to the linker and not
standardized.
Isn't it? dmd will set it up
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 14:26:35 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 14:10:14 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
Druntime uses contracts and asserts in places. Which are of
course removed because we ship only a release build. Once
again, the worst naming for a compiler switch ever. What I
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 15:23:03 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 14:26:35 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 14:10:14 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
Druntime uses contracts and asserts in places. Which are of
course removed because we ship only a release build. Once
On 8/1/14, 7:18 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
It might also be possible that this is what is actually wanted:
alias Foo = Algebraic!(int,Algebraic!(This[],double)[]);
(I.e. This refers to the inner type.)
There is always this issue as well:
alias ListInt=Algebraic!(Tuple!(),Tuple!(int,ListInt*));
On 08/01/2014 05:56 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On 07/30/2014 01:09 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
I'm not sure how you except log(LogLevel., Hello world) to be
disabled at compile time if LogLevel. is a runtime value? Or do I
misunderstood you?
you can choose to disable name based
On 08/01/2014 01:53 PM, Don wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 09:02:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 02:44:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That entry makes no mention of assert being
On 08/01/2014 05:07 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 15:05:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/1/14, 4:00 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 15:41:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Then you have the globals write and writef which will compete with
those in
On 08/01/2014 05:31 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
Exactly, that's the problem. They collide, so when import both the
hijack protection will error.
import std.stdio, std.log;
write(foobar); // matches both std.stdio.write and std.log.write
It'd also make it more difficult to tell what
On 08/01/2014 11:02 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 02:44:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That entry makes no mention of assert being used as an optimization
hint.
Saying that a predicate
On 8/1/14, 8:07 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 15:05:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/1/14, 4:00 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 15:41:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Then you have the globals write and writef which will compete with
those in
Sorry to hijack the thread, but:
On 07/31/2014 09:27 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
If you're brave and want to have some fun, fill up your hard disk so
it is nearly full. Now run your favorite programs that read and write
files. Sit back and watch the crazy results (far too many
On 8/1/14, 8:28 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/01/2014 01:53 PM, Don wrote:
If you are disabling your asserts, but still believe that they may fail,
that means you're expecting your program to enter undefined behaviour!
Nonsense. This claim is ignoring the current reality of software
On 08/01/2014 05:18 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/31/2014 12:46 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
AFAIK, the compiler currently doesn't use assert as a source of
information for optimization, it's just being proposed.
It already does by default,
That's good and that's obviously not a
Am 01.08.2014 16:58, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
You may dislike what Walter wanted assert to be, but really this has
been it from the beginning. Back in the day when I joined him I
questioned the validity of making assert a keyword. He explained that
he wanted it to be magic in the same way
1 - 100 of 305 matches
Mail list logo
