On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:49:07 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > yes, yes and yes!
> You forgot the Oxford comma :o). -- Andrei
yes, yes, and yes!
fixed, ready to another round of reviews. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 00:50:23 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 21:03:59 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
If your semantics require page faults to trap then you should
declare the storage volatile.
Or what ? Or it is undefined behavior ?
Or else you cannot rely on them t
On 8/29/2014 2:52 PM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= "
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 19:01:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/29/14, 3:53 AM, "Marc Schütz" " wrote:
Jacob Carlborg just recently brought this up in another thread. Isn't it
kind of consensus that calling a destructor fr
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 21:35:11 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
"4. Reading from an invalid pointer either traps or produces an
unspecified value. In particular, all but the most arcane
hardware platforms can produce a trap when dereferencing a null
pointer, and the compiler should preserve this
==
David Nadlinger
==
"I agree. For this reason, I also vote for "no" (1 as well as 2),
as the current conditional logging support doubles the size of
the API for shaving a grand total of 3 characters off the
invocation in a rather infrequen
I have likely missed several points but overall it seem pretty
clear to me that all requests / concerns have not been addressed
and this proposal is not yet ready for another round of review.
Also x-post from GitHub PR of my personal nitpick:
"... have noticed that all logging functions have
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:04:28 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 18:23:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I will compare changelist against list of requirements from
voters this weekend and if all seems to be addressed will
start a new round of review/voting.
sound
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 19:22:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Btw, while I remember it, doing mixin("static import ...") is
highly recommended instead for namespace hygiene reason if you
are actually going to do anything with found symbols.
Logical. I've never actually used this trick for anything
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 21:03:59 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 19:37:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
NULL or any address, as you can change memory protection on a
per
page basis, and have different protection for read write and
execution.
If your semantics require
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 18:57:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 8/29/14, 12:40 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
Vic, I posted the job to the D Developer Network at LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Looking-hire-2-3-programmers-3923820%2ES%2E5911023777222787073?trk=groups%2Finclude%2Fitem_
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 21:09:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 20:54:10 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
If it was indeed unexpected then you're right, but how do you
know it wasn't intentional?
Because then it should have been declared volatile?
If accessing an inv
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 20:54:10 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
If it was indeed unexpected then you're right, but how do you
know it wasn't intentional?
Because then it should have been declared volatile?
If accessing an invalid pointer isn't unspecified behaviour
(which this discussion is abo
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 19:37:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
NULL or any address, as you can change memory protection on a
per
page basis, and have different protection for read write and
execution.
If your semantics require page faults to trap then you should
declare the storage volatile.
Y
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 20:41:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 18:46:20 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
It does. An access that can potentially fault is more or less
equivalent to this:
if(p is null)
throw new Error();
*p = ...;
When you remove the acc
I would now like to invoke the Zero One Infinity
Rule(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_one_infinity_rule).
Supporting one format makes sense - DUB can simply use the set of
functions and data structures provided by Phobos or by external
libraries for using this format.
Supporting two format
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 18:46:20 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
It does. An access that can potentially fault is more or less
equivalent to this:
if(p is null)
throw new Error();
*p = ...;
When you remove the access, you're removing the test, which
changes program semantics.
N
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 19:01:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 8/29/14, 3:53 AM, "Marc Schütz" " wrote:
Jacob Carlborg just recently brought this up in another
thread. Isn't it
kind of consensus that calling a destructor from the GC is not
a good
idea because of the restrictions that
On 8/29/2014 7:37 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 19:47:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
The differences (off the top of my head, there may be more):
- Nobody has to actually write the closing
True for XML too:
1. many editors already autocomplete it, no need to wonder, why no
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 18:46:20 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:46:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:34:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
No, as the load or the store involved can fault/trap.
What kind of trap? Not getting an exception wil
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 19:04:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
The mixin("import "...) line was mind-blowingly ingenious, I
have to
say. As are the mixin(x) lines where x is an alias, to coax
the compiler
to recursively scan submodules. D seriously rawkz for
compile-time
reflection.
W
On 8/29/14, 10:12 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 09:48:51AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Worth a look:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2329/d-finding-all-functions-with-certain-attribute
[...]
Wow. That's ... awesome. Kudos to Ad
On 8/29/14, 3:53 AM, "Marc Schütz" " wrote:
Jacob Carlborg just recently brought this up in another thread. Isn't it
kind of consensus that calling a destructor from the GC is not a good
idea because of the restrictions that apply in this context? Andrei even
wanted to deprecate destructors for c
On 8/29/14, 2:16 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 09:08:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 8/29/14, ponce via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:21:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Dear community, are you ready for this?
Yes! Whateve
On 8/29/14, 12:40 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
Vic, I posted the job to the D Developer Network at LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Looking-hire-2-3-programmers-3923820%2ES%2E5911023777222787073?trk=groups%2Finclude%2Fitem_snippet-0-b-ttl
Dejan, could you please add yourself as an MVP respon
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:46:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:34:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
No, as the load or the store involved can fault/trap.
What kind of trap? Not getting an exception will not
necessarily change correctness.
It does. An access tha
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 18:12:04 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On 8/29/2014 12:41 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
Questions:
- Can and will this work for arrays of structs?
- When doing manual GC allocations (for whatever reason), how
can we
later tell the GC what destructor to call?
Yes, this does w
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 18:12:04 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On 8/29/2014 12:41 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
Questions:
- Can and will this work for arrays of structs?
- When doing manual GC allocations (for whatever reason), how
can we
later tell the GC what destructor to call?
Yes, this does w
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 16:48:52 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Worth a look:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2329/d-finding-all-functions-with-certain-attribute
Andrei
Cool stuff. Maybe it's just because I started programming D by
doing compile-time reflection (and 3 of my dub
On 8/29/2014 12:41 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
Questions:
- Can and will this work for arrays of structs?
- When doing manual GC allocations (for whatever reason), how can we
later tell the GC what destructor to call?
Yes, this does work for arrays of structs. Provided that you've passed
in the t
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:34:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
No, as the load or the store involved can fault/trap.
What kind of trap? Not getting an exception will not necessarily
change correctness. Removing a division by zero is not changing
correctness:
ok = (1.0/0.0 == 1.0) || true
asse
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:21:00 UTC, Philippe Sigaud via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I remember using the same 'module' trick a few years ago (that
is,
getting a name with __traits and testing whether it begins with
"module " or not) and, like Adam, being a bit ashamed by what I
just
did :) Whil
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:29:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
A lot of Adam's stuff are in that category.
(...)
I highly recommending studying how Adam's code achieves this.
:-)
It's also a bit hypnotic. I wanted to do a quick test of his
simpledisplay.d module, after read
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:17:07 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
There's another bug I didn't notice when writing the SO answer:
the "module b.d;" didn't actually get picked up. Renaming it to
"module b;" works, but not when it includes the package.
h cuz it is considered "package mod" in s
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:29:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
The code figures out which signals to send to which delegates
*at runtime*. The way this is done is to use the .mangleof of
the struct's type as key to an AA
I think there might be an easier way to do this too: cast(
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:33:14 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:29:49 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Indeed, undefined behavior can be anything, by definition, and
this cannot. Still, removing undefined behavior and replace it
by undefined values cause the optimizer
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 17:29:49 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Indeed, undefined behavior can be anything, by definition, and
this cannot. Still, removing undefined behavior and replace it
by undefined values cause the optimizer to have to prove that
load/store won't fault, which is going to kill
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 08:50:59 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 08:29:50 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Because, if you don't have undefined BEHAVIOR, you can't
change the BEHAVIOR. So you have to prove that store/loads
won't fault before doing anything with them. As p
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:06:56PM +, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 16:48:52 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >Worth a look:
> >
> >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2329/d-finding-all-functions-with-certain-attribute
> >
> >Andrei
>
> This is exactly th
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:12 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> The mixin("import "...) line was mind-blowingly ingenious, I have to
> say.
I remember using the same 'module' trick a few years ago (that is,
getting a name with __traits and testing whether it begins with
"module " or not) a
There's another bug I didn't notice when writing the SO answer:
the "module b.d;" didn't actually get picked up. Renaming it to
"module b;" works, but not when it includes the package.
h cuz it is considered "package mod" in stringof which
has no members. Maybe if the compiler just cal
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2329/d-finding-all-functions-with-certain-attribute
That's what a good part of his book is about, also. A nice read, one
of my favorite chapters of the "D Cookbook".
Ideally, Adam should do a PR for Phobos to add some code-walking
ability like this.
I'm in
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 09:48:51AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> Worth a look:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2329/d-finding-all-functions-with-certain-attribute
[...]
Wow. That's ... awesome. Kudos to Adam for the ingenuity!!! Compile-time
reflection FTW!
Th
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 16:48:52 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Worth a look:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2329/d-finding-all-functions-with-certain-attribute
Andrei
This is exactly the stuff I have referring to in DConf talk as
"must have things that are simple by concept bu
On 8/28/14, 11:13 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:21:04 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Dear community, are you ready for this?
yes, yes and yes!
You forgot the Oxford comma :o). -- Andrei
Worth a look:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2329/d-finding-all-functions-with-certain-attribute
Andrei
On Sunday, 25 July 2010 at 14:10:10 UTC, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
bearophile wrote:
I suggest all people in all D newsgroups, to write code that
runs, not uncompilable snippets. All errors in the last
Walter's talk can be avoided in few minutes running the code.
In Python newsgroups 90% of the
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 14:24:34 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:21:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Dear community, are you ready for this?
Yes.
This is a significant change of behavior. Should we provide a
temporary flag or attribute to disable it?
I do
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:21:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Dear community, are you ready for this?
Yes.
This is a significant change of behavior. Should we provide a
temporary flag or attribute to disable it?
I don't think so, it will just hinder adoption. If people don't
want i
On 29/08/14 12:53, "Marc Schütz" " wrote:
Jacob Carlborg just recently brought this up in another thread. Isn't it
kind of consensus that calling a destructor from the GC is not a good
idea because of the restrictions that apply in this context? Andrei even
wanted to deprecate destructors for cl
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 12:27:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 29 August 2014 10:32, Chris via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how
immutability works in
D.
This is why I don't believe in "coincidence". This could be
either an
attemp
Any links to quickly get into the topic? This is first time I
hear about
it.
What's really bad is that there is also CETA, which is an
agreement between the EU and Canada, and which is nothing than
an inconspicuous back door to achieve much of the same thing as
TTIP. Unfortunately it has g
On 8/29/14, 10:55 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 05:13:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/27/14, 9:47 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
Anyone here knows how to consistently obtain the previous tag on git?
Are tags always coming in order? Then it's easy:
git tag | tail -n2 |
On 29 August 2014 10:32, Chris via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>> In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how immutability works in
>> D.
>
>
> This is why I don't believe in "coincidence". This could be either an
> attempt to crush D or some people might have realized that D's way of
> handling
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 10:30:49 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
What's really bad is that there is also CETA, which is an
agreement between the EU and Canada, and which is nothing than
an inconspicuous back door to achieve much of the same thing as
TTIP. Unfortunately it has gotten basically no
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 19:47:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
The differences (off the top of my head, there may be more):
- Nobody has to actually write the closing
True for XML too:
1. many editors already autocomplete it, no need to wonder, why
nobody implemented it;
2. if you need a
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:40 UTC, Brad Roberts via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 8/27/2014 12:11 AM, via Digitalmars-d wrote:
In the US, filing a patent app requires about $10k and a good
lawyer. It's not in the realm of most small entities to do.
It's a seriously bad use of $10k. The bes
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 06:39:20 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:38:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Maybe a more relevant question might be, is there any existing
code that
*isn't* broken by structs not being destructed? (D-structed,
har har.)
Well,
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 09:16:36 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 09:08:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 8/29/14, ponce via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:21:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Dear community, are you ready fo
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:48 UTC, Timothee Cour via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I've used it quite a bit for a number of bindings (opencv, sfml
+ many other libs).
Actually I would like to try some stuff with opencv, but I've
never used SWIG, so I don't know how hight is the bar.
To l
Am 29.08.2014 04:15, schrieb Dicebot:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:57 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Jérôme,
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:53 +0200, "Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
PPS: IANAL but I have had lots of contacts with patent lawyers and I
have taken par
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 10:06:59 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 10:01:17 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 8/28/2014 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Yeah, and the form rejects all a
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 03:38:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 8/27/14, 5:25 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 10:51:28 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
Then perfection in personal finance is easy to achieve :o). --
In corporate finance, too:
http://en.wikip
On 8/28/2014 5:07 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
" wrote:
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 19:47:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 8/28/2014 5:29 AM, Kagamin wrote:
and the only way
to make them scale is to turn them into syntactical equivalent of XML
with closing tags. And even then more verbose than
On Sunday, 25 July 2010 at 14:10:10 UTC, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Update: Members of FunctionAttribute have been renamed from
uppercase to lowercase and when needed an underscore has been
added to the enumerators that conflict with keywords such as:
PURE has been renamed to pure_
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 10:01:17 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 8/28/2014 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art
without
a patent number.
On 8/28/2014 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art without
a patent number.
Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)
Never ascribe to malice th
On 8/28/2014 9:57 PM, Poyeyo wrote:
On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 16:40:10 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've been working on SDL support for DUB and wanted to get some
people's opinions on whether we should really use SDL. I've posted my
thoughts here:
http://forum.rejectedsoftwa
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 17:34:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/28/2014 2:53 AM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an
instance
(i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
patent it is used when declaring the type. For a p
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 09:08:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 8/29/14, ponce via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:21:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Dear community, are you ready for this?
Yes! Whatever needs be done.
Yeah destructors are a s
On 8/29/14, ponce via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:21:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>> Dear community, are you ready for this?
>
> Yes! Whatever needs be done.
Yeah destructors are a sore pain when they're unreliable. "May or may
not be called" is just an awful se
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 08:29:50 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Because, if you don't have undefined BEHAVIOR, you can't change
the BEHAVIOR. So you have to prove that store/loads won't fault
before doing anything with them. As per spec. Or you'll change
the BEHAVIOR.
By fault you mean trap an il
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:21:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Dear community, are you ready for this?
Yes! Whatever needs be done.
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 05:55:18 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 05:31:02 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
If the value in unspecified, rather than the behavior
undefined, it means that no load or store can be optimized
away or reordered, unless the compiler can prove that is
On Monday, 21 July 2014 at 02:43:51 UTC, Vic wrote:
(I hope OK to post:)
Location: Silicon Valley /San Jose, CA/ or Dallas TX.
Current 'app' version is mostly Java/Tomcat, so will need to
maintain that while writing a new version, likely mostly D (
possibly Qt depending on GC ). (Also a few li
I filed bug https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13390 but have a
question with it. I use cycle to implement simple ring buffer.
struct RingBuffer(T)
{
private T[] _data;
private size_t _index;
private size_t _length;
auto opSlice() const
{
return cycle(_data[0..
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 09:12:17 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It forces all the load to potentially have side effects, which,
in turn, limit dramatically what the optimizer can do.
Why? I could be true in case of unspecified behavior, but not in
case of unspecified value.
76 matches
Mail list logo
