Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:30:52 +, kinke wrote: > So for the 2nd assignment's left-hand-side, the index is evaluated > before evaluating the container! Please don't tell me that's by design. > :> it is. at least this is what i was told when i faced the similar issue. "WONTIFX, STFU". signature

Re: Uphill

On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:24:26 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > I find the situation being like at university looking for > grants or funding, and constantly being told. 'Oh yes, it is > important what you are doing, and you must keep doing it as it is > pivotal for future success.  Bu

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 07:33:49 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:30:52 +, kinke wrote: So for the 2nd assignment's left-hand-side, the index is evaluated before evaluating the container! Please don't tell me that's by design. :> it is. at least this is what i was told when i

Re: indie game contests

Awww Danni, you've forsaken me! :P On 25 May 2015 at 03:47, Vlad Levenfeld via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, 23 May 2015 at 05:17:13 UTC, Danni Coy wrote: >> >> Got very close to a year or so ago. Probably something I would be much >> more capable of doing now. The only downside is that I e

Autotester FreeBSD: Cycle detected between modules with ctors/dtors

The autotester complains about cycles between module ctors on FreeBSD 32/64 for this PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3233 The modules are std.digest.hmac (added in the PR), and std.digest.digest. However, neither of them even has a module ctor or dtor. I remember va

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 08:00:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: it is, a slight change to the code could change the order. So, the kind of stuff that you're complaining about not being able to do really shouldn't be done regardless of how well-defined the order of evaluation is. It's just beggi

Re: Request for Features/Ideas: A std.archive package

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 03:33:37 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: Anyway, take a look at e.g. IWritableCapsuleArchive. There is a LOT more whitespace needed to be added in that file. Could you elaborate? Functions/etc in the interfaces are grouped by purpose (opIndexAssign/opSliceAssign are gro

Re: Uphill

On Sunday, 24 May 2015 at 19:06:28 UTC, weaselcat wrote: Furthermore, I strongly dislike that Rust has made it completely impossible to opt out of bounds checking without annotating your code with unsafe. But this is exactly the situation in D, isn't it? As soon as you use `arr.ptr[i]`, you'r

Re: Uphill

On Sunday, 24 May 2015 at 16:03:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 5/24/15 1:20 AM, weaselcat wrote: IMO I think the worst thing C++ has done is blatantly ignore features that have been 'killer' in D(see: the reaction to the static_if proposal) http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/p

Re: Request for Features/Ideas: A std.archive package

On 25/05/2015 10:48 p.m., Liam McSherry wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 03:33:37 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: Anyway, take a look at e.g. IWritableCapsuleArchive. There is a LOT more whitespace needed to be added in that file. Could you elaborate? Functions/etc in the interfaces are grouped

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 08:00:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: It might be completely well-defined and consistent, but it may not be what you expect, and even if it is, a slight change to the code could change the order. If the behavior isn't what I expect (and I don't think that's often cas

DMD Symbol Reference Analysis Pass

Does DMD currently do any analysis of references to a symbol in a given scope? If not where could this information be extracted (in which visitor/callback) and in what structure should it, if so, be stored? Reason: After having read about Rust's data-flow (and in turn escape) analysis I'm very cu

Re: Request for Features/Ideas: A std.archive package

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 11:50:25 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: Basically there is no lines between one function declaration and another. I've added some extra white-space.

Re: Request for Features/Ideas: A std.archive package

On 26/05/2015 1:39 a.m., Liam McSherry wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 11:50:25 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: Basically there is no lines between one function declaration and another. I've added some extra white-space. Awesome thanks, it'll make it a little easier to get it through review. T

Expanding asm.dlang.org

We currently have 4 different online compiler/disassembers all forked from the same GCC Explorer, and all apparently hosted by different individuals. http://asm.dlang.org (DMD) http://d.godbolt.org/ (GDC) http://explore.dgnu.org/ (GDC) http://ldc.acomirei.ru/ (LDC) Judging by the announcement

Re: shared libs for OSX

I've been reading through the Mach-O docs[1], and it seems that dynamic libs are treated the same as static libs in that exported symbols can only be defined once, even across dynamically loaded libraries. This is why calling rt_init from my dylib ended up calling the one that was already d

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On 25 May 2015 16:30, "Mike via Digitalmars-d" wrote: > > We currently have 4 different online compiler/disassembers all forked from the same GCC Explorer, and all apparently hosted by different individuals. > > http://asm.dlang.org (DMD) > http://d.godbolt.org/ (GDC) > http://explore.dgnu.org/ (G

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

I can add any cross compilers hosted on gdcproject.org. What do you need from me?

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 14:41:51 UTC, Mike wrote: I can add any cross compilers hosted on gdcproject.org. What do you need from me? Or did you mean any compiler from the finite list here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/satkcwpjqogloqlrj...@forum.dlang.org?

Re: Uphill

On 25 May 2015 09:45, "ketmar via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:24:26 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > I find the situation being like at university looking for > > grants or funding, and constantly being told. 'Oh yes, it is > > im

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 14:54:59 UTC, Mike wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 14:41:51 UTC, Mike wrote: I can add any cross compilers hosted on gdcproject.org. What do you need from me? Or did you mean any compiler from the finite list here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/satkcwpjqogloqlrj...@

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On 25 May 2015 16:55, "Mike via Digitalmars-d" wrote: > > On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 14:41:51 UTC, Mike wrote: >>> >>> I can add any cross compilers hosted on gdcproject.org. >> >> >> What do you need from me? > > > Or did you mean any compiler from the finite list here: http://forum.dlang.org/post

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 15:03:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 25 May 2015 16:55, "Mike via Digitalmars-d" wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 14:41:51 UTC, Mike wrote: I can add any cross compilers hosted on gdcproject.org. What do you need from me? Or did you mean any compiler from the

Re: Autotester FreeBSD: Cycle detected between modules with ctors/dtors

On 5/25/15 6:18 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= " wrote: The autotester complains about cycles between module ctors on FreeBSD 32/64 for this PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3233 The modules are std.digest.hmac (added in the PR), and std.digest.digest. However, neith

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 12:38:29 UTC, kinke wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 08:00:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: It might be completely well-defined and consistent, but it may not be what you expect, and even if it is, a slight change to the code could change the order. If the behavior is

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On 25 May 2015 at 17:06, Mike via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 15:03:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 25 May 2015 16:55, "Mike via Digitalmars-d" >> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 14:41:51 UTC, Mike wrote: > > > I can add any cross compilers hos

Re: Uphill

On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:59:48 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 25 May 2015 09:45, "ketmar via Digitalmars-d" < > digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:24:26 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d >> wrote: >> >> > I find the situation being like at universit

Re: Uphill

On 25 May 2015 at 18:14, ketmar via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:59:48 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > On 25 May 2015 09:45, "ketmar via Digitalmars-d" < > > digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:24:26

[dconf] Share a ride SLC-hotel?

I'm arriving in SLC on Tue at 11:39 pm. Anyone up for sharing a ride? I'm thinking http://www.expressshuttleutah.com/. -- Andrei

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 5/25/15 1:00 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: foo(++i, ++i); More complete example: table[++i] = objTable[++i].funcTable[++i](++i, ++i); should be well defined and evaluate left to right. Andrei

Re: Uphill

On 5/25/15 3:51 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= " wrote: On Sunday, 24 May 2015 at 16:03:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 5/24/15 1:20 AM, weaselcat wrote: IMO I think the worst thing C++ has done is blatantly ignore features that have been 'killer' in D(see: the reaction to the static_

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 5/24/15 11:13 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: The context here involves concurrency where bar() calls yield and makes changes to foo before returning to assign the updated results. We're not addressing that. += is not supposed to do concurrency magic. -- Andrei

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On 5/25/15 7:36 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: I can add any cross compilers hosted on gdcproject.org . You'd need to go through Godbolt to get it on his host. asm.dlang.org is a no go because it has been tailored for dmd only. The right a

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On 25 May 2015 at 18:45, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 5/25/15 7:36 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> I can add any cross compilers hosted on gdcproject.org >> . You'd need to go through Godbolt to get it on >> h

Re: Expanding asm.dlang.org

On 25 May 2015 at 17:02, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 25 May 2015 16:55, "Mike via Digitalmars-d" < > digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > > > On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 14:41:51 UTC, Mike wrote: > >>> > >>> I can add any cross compilers hosted on gdcproject.org. > >> > >> > >> What do you need from

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

Am Mon, 25 May 2015 09:40:34 -0700 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu : > On 5/24/15 11:13 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > The context here involves concurrency where bar() calls yield and > > makes changes to foo before returning to assign the updated results. > > We're not addressing that

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 5/25/15 10:21 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote: Am Mon, 25 May 2015 09:40:34 -0700 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu : On 5/24/15 11:13 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: The context here involves concurrency where bar() calls yield and makes changes to foo before returning to assign the updated res

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 05/25/2015 07:21 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote: Am Mon, 25 May 2015 09:40:34 -0700 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu : On 5/24/15 11:13 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: The context here involves concurrency where bar() calls yield and makes changes to foo before returning to assign the updated

Re: [dconf] Share a ride SLC-hotel?

On 5/25/2015 9:39 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I'm arriving in SLC on Tue at 11:39 pm. Anyone up for sharing a ride? I'm thinking http://www.expressshuttleutah.com/. -- Andrei Chuck says the shuttle is $38 one way and $68 round trip.

Re: std.multidimarray

On Sunday, 24 May 2015 at 22:42:12 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: On Sunday, 24 May 2015 at 20:45:56 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: You might take a look at Vlad Levenfeld's work too, although I think he would say that it is still at an early stage (if I understand correctly - looks very interesting to

Re: std.multidimarray

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote: The matrix implementation is really just a placeholder, when I have more time I would like to fill it out with compile-time swappable backend implementations using the same matrix frontend (eg forwarding arithmetic operations to gsl

Re: shared libs for OSX

On 2015-05-25 16:33, bitwise wrote: I've been reading through the Mach-O docs[1], and it seems that dynamic libs are treated the same as static libs in that exported symbols can only be defined once, even across dynamically loaded libraries. This is why calling rt_init from my dylib ended up call

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:mjvlv5$vch$1...@digitalmars.com... > which one is correct? GDC. -- Andrei I don't think it matters too much if we pick strict LTR, or keep dmd's existing exception for assign expressions. IIRC Walter is in favour of keeping the exception[1]. C

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 17:21:05 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote: import std.stdio; void main() { int a = 0; int bar() { a++; return a; } a += bar(); // => a = a + bar() writeln(a); } DMD: 2 GDC: 1 which one is correct? So what about my previous example? in

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 25 May 2015 21:00, "Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:mjvlv5$vch$1...@digitalmars.com. .. > > >> > which one is correct? >> >> GDC. -- Andrei > > > I don't think it matters too much if we pick strict LTR, or ke

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 25 May 2015 at 21:02, kinke via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 17:21:05 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote: > >> import std.stdio; >> void main() >> { >> int a = 0; >> int bar() >> { >> a++; >> return a; >> } >> a += bar

Re: std.multidimarray

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 18:33:57 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: Yes, that's what I mean. Some common questions about working with multidimensional arrays need to be addressed. For example, the cycle `foreach` multiple iterators, etc. Cycle was tough. I was using T[2] to track slice boundaries bu

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 05/25/2015 09:14 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: So what about my previous example? int b = 0; ((++b *= 5) *= 2) += ++b * (b -= 6); DMD 2.067.1: 60, latest LDC: 65, GDC: ? If the litmus test is "What does GDC do?", then LDC is doing it the correct way. :-) Even

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 05/25/2015 09:14 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: If the litmus test is "What does GDC do?", then LDC is doing it the correct way. :-) Perfect. :) On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 19:17:48 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: Even if it isn't. ;) It is - on its merge-2.067 branch. ;)

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 05/25/2015 09:28 PM, kinke wrote: On 05/25/2015 09:14 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: If the litmus test is "What does GDC do?", then LDC is doing it the correct way. :-) Perfect. :) On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 19:17:48 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: Even if it isn't. ;) It is - on its m

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 25 May 2015 21:35, "Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 05/25/2015 09:28 PM, kinke wrote: >>> >>> On 05/25/2015 09:14 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: If the litmus test is "What does GDC do?", then LDC is doing it the correct way. :-

Re: shared libs for OSX

On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:39:37 -0400, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2015-05-25 16:33, bitwise wrote: I've been reading through the Mach-O docs[1], and it seems that dynamic libs are treated the same as static libs in that exported symbols can only be defined once, even across dynamically loaded libr

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 05/24/2015 09:30 PM, kinke wrote: import core.stdc.stdio; static int[] _array = [ 0, 1, 2, 3 ]; int[] array() @property { printf("array()\n"); return _array; } int start() @property { printf("start()\n"); return 0; } int end() @property { printf("end()\n"); return 1; } void main()

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

"Timon Gehr" wrote in message news:mjvtqm$17d8$1...@digitalmars.com... A related issue is that the rewrites documented at http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html don't all preserve the order of subexpressions. However, ideally, the order of evaluation would be preserved. As operator overl

Re: D for Android

On Monday, 18 May 2015 at 15:47:07 UTC, Joakim wrote: Sure, have fun with your new devices. :) Hopefully, I'll get Android/ARM working before then, but I don't and won't have any AArch64 devices to test. Not that it matters, as 64-bit ARM has even less share than x86 right now. Earlier this

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 05/25/2015 10:02 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote: "Timon Gehr" wrote in message news:mjvtqm$17d8$1...@digitalmars.com... A related issue is that the rewrites documented at http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html don't all preserve the order of subexpressions. However, ideally, the order of evalua

Re: [dconf] Share a ride SLC-hotel?

On 5/25/15 12:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I'm arriving in SLC on Tue at 11:39 pm. Anyone up for sharing a ride? I'm thinking http://www.expressshuttleutah.com/. -- Andrei Just make sure you call, because they told me after hours (which I think was after midnight) requires an additional f

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

"Timon Gehr" wrote in message news:mjvvq2$19hd$1...@digitalmars.com... > As operator overloading is defined in terms of lowering to function > calls, I think it's reasonable to decide the order of evaluation after > the lowering. This will still be consistent across compilers and > platforms.

Re: shared libs for OSX

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 14:33:43 UTC, bitwise wrote: At this point, my impression is that it would be very impractical, if not impossible to have separate druntimes for each shared library. Even when you do link separate runtimes, dyld still treats all the exported symbols as shared. Yes, y

Re: std.multidimarray

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 19:14:05 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote: Cycle was tough. I was using T[2] to track slice boundaries but had to retrofit the library with an Interval!(L,R) type to admit the possibility of unbounded dimensions. This has resulted in a fairly easy implementation for cycle, th

Re: std.multidimarray

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 19:14:05 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote: https://github.com/evenex/autodata/blob/master/source/spaces/cyclic.d And I think that the symbol `ℕ` in your code you need to replace some words.

Re: shared libs for OSX

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 19:40:52 UTC, bitwise wrote: 1) _dyld_register_func_for_add_image should be taken care of with the above two fixes You still cannot unregister the callback, so it can't be used for dynamically loading druntime. Last time we talked about this problem, we found some un

Re: indie game contests

@Manu - if by that you mean do game jams without you - that horse has already bolted the stable :p I would be happy to a try the October Game Jam again this year and I thoroughly recommend the global (much more laid back). extrawurst - danni@gmail.com On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Manu via

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 05/25/2015 10:30 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote: "Timon Gehr" wrote in message news:mjvvq2$19hd$1...@digitalmars.com... > As operator overloading is defined in terms of lowering to function > calls, I think it's reasonable to decide the order of evaluation after > the lowering. This will still be

Status of Deimos bindings

What's the current status of Deimos? I don't think that this kind of bindings is useless, since not everyone always wants dynamic bindings. E.g. for the sake of simplicity or static linking. Actually Walter even fixes issues in these bindings time by time, so I guess the idea is still alive. Bu

Re: Status of Deimos bindings

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 21:33:15 UTC, FreeSlave wrote: What's the current status of Deimos? I don't think that this kind of bindings is useless, since not everyone always wants dynamic bindings. E.g. for the sake of simplicity or static linking. Actually Walter even fixes issues in these bind

Re: DIP66 1.2 (Multiple) alias this. Continuation of work.

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 20:01:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 3/31/15 7:28 AM, IgorStepanov wrote: On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 18:33:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 3/30/15 8:04 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 3/29/15 1:34 PM, IgorStepanov wrote: 1. We should reject types

Re: Uphill

On Mon, 25 May 2015 18:34:24 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Yes, they do. The key difference is that GCC doesn't require you to > delve into it's backend, as a language implementer, you only need to > think of how the code should be represented in it's tree language (ie: > http://i

Re: DIP66 1.2 (Multiple) alias this. Continuation of work.

On 03/29/2015 07:34 PM, IgorStepanov wrote: 3. is(T: B) should raise an error if there are many ways to convert T to B. This is inconsistent with how 'is' works otherwise, and it breaks template constraints in annoying ways. (There is no SFINAE.) auto foo()()if(true){ return 1; } // this is

Re: Uphill

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 22:27:10 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Mon, 25 May 2015 18:34:24 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: Yes, they do. The key difference is that GCC doesn't require you to delve into it's backend, as a language implementer, you only need to think of how the code should

Re: Uphill

On Mon, 25 May 2015 22:46:51 +, weaselcat wrote: > then contribute to LDC? sorry, not interested in LLVM in any way. not that "it should die", but "i don't care if it exists or not". signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: std.multidimarray

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 20:52:33 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 19:14:05 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote: https://github.com/evenex/autodata/blob/master/source/spaces/cyclic.d And I think that the symbol `ℕ` in your code you need to replace some words. Ok, done.

Re: Uphill

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 22:48:59 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Mon, 25 May 2015 22:46:51 +, weaselcat wrote: then contribute to LDC? sorry, not interested in LLVM in any way. not that "it should die", but "i don't care if it exists or not". LLVM addresses every issue you complained about in

Re: DIP66 1.2 (Multiple) alias this. Continuation of work.

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 22:32:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: On 03/29/2015 07:34 PM, IgorStepanov wrote: 3. is(T: B) should raise an error if there are many ways to convert T to B. This is inconsistent with how 'is' works otherwise, and it breaks template constraints in annoying ways. (There i

Re: Proof of concept - library AA

On Sunday, 24 May 2015 at 14:13:26 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Would be interesting to get some opinions on this. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/1282 BTW, I have one idea. We may declare the AA ABI: AA is a pointer to the next layout: __vtbl N bytes of data and __vtbl i

Re: DIP66 1.2 (Multiple) alias this. Continuation of work.

On 05/26/2015 01:17 AM, IgorStepanov wrote: My example: auto foo(T)(){ return 1; } auto foo(T)()if(is(T: int)){ return 2; } struct Foo { //... } struct Bar { Foo f; int i; alias i this; } auto ret = foo!Bar; assert(ret == 2); //exactly the second function ... (No, thi

Re: Proof of concept - library AA

On Sunday, 24 May 2015 at 15:13:41 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Sunday, 24 May 2015 at 14:13:26 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Would be interesting to get some opinions on this. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/1282 Looks like a good step in the right direction. Some qu

Re: std.multidimarray

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 20:49:16 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: That recursive n-dimensional array, but I think that recursion will not be effective. http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ulhtlyxxclihaseef...@forum.dlang.org#post-mihl6m:241che:241:40digitalmars.com I don't mean nested arrays, I mean an

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 5/25/15 11:58 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote: "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:mjvlv5$vch$1...@digitalmars.com... > which one is correct? GDC. -- Andrei I don't think it matters too much if we pick strict LTR, or keep dmd's existing exception for assign expressions. IIRC Walter is i

Re: std.multidimarray

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 23:14:39 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote: And I think that the symbol `ℕ` in your code you need to replace some words. Ok, done. Your `cycle` - this is a very great and interesting idea! It is necessary to implement such a foreach: import std.algorithm : equal; void mai

Re: DIP66 1.2 (Multiple) alias this. Continuation of work.

On 5/25/15 3:01 PM, IgorStepanov wrote: Ok, I've applied your changes to the DIP page, and I'm starting to rework my github PR. Sorry for the slow work (I'm very busy last time). However I still working. Stay on line=) Thanks. Please get this done and let's pull it in for 068. -- Andrei

Re: DIP66 1.2 (Multiple) alias this. Continuation of work.

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 23:36:00 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: On 05/26/2015 01:17 AM, IgorStepanov wrote: My example: auto foo(T)(){ return 1; } auto foo(T)()if(is(T: int)){ return 2; } struct Foo { //... } struct Bar { Foo f; int i; alias i this; } auto ret = foo!Bar; assert(

Re: std.multidimarray

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 23:40:46 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote: I don't mean nested arrays, I mean an equivalent recursive definition for the sake of exposing a "natural" traversal strategy, which you get if your object admits the notion of a pointed element and of proper disjoint subobjects. For

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On 05/26/2015 01:45 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 5/25/15 11:58 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote: "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:mjvlv5$vch$1...@digitalmars.com... > which one is correct? GDC. -- Andrei I don't think it matters too much if we pick strict LTR, or keep dmd's existing

Re: Status of Deimos bindings

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 21:43:18 UTC, rsw0x wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 21:33:15 UTC, FreeSlave wrote: What's the current status of Deimos? I don't think that this kind of bindings is useless, since not everyone always wants dynamic bindings. E.g. for the sake of simplicity or static li

Re: Uphill

On Mon, 25 May 2015 23:19:26 +, weaselcat wrote: > On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 22:48:59 UTC, ketmar wrote: >> On Mon, 25 May 2015 22:46:51 +, weaselcat wrote: >> >>> then contribute to LDC? >> >> sorry, not interested in LLVM in any way. not that "it should die", but >> "i don't care if it e

Re: Status of Deimos bindings

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 21:33:15 UTC, FreeSlave wrote: What's the current status of Deimos? I don't think that this kind of bindings is useless, since not everyone always wants dynamic bindings. E.g. for the sake of simplicity or static linking. Actually Walter even fixes issues in these bind

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 17:25:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: It's not += doing the magic, it's bar(). And it's not limited to concurrency, it happens with every side effect: import std.stdio; void main() { int a = 0; int bar() { a++; return a; } a += ba

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 23:44:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 5/25/15 11:58 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote: "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:mjvlv5$vch$1...@digitalmars.com... > which one is correct? GDC. -- Andrei I don't think it matters too much if we pick strict LTR, or ke

Re: Uphill

On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 at 00:24:20 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Mon, 25 May 2015 23:19:26 +, weaselcat wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 22:48:59 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Mon, 25 May 2015 22:46:51 +, weaselcat wrote: then contribute to LDC? sorry, not interested in LLVM in any way. not that

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 at 00:07:33 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: I'm fine with RTL for assignment expressions, and LTR everywhere else. Daniel, if you could work this out at front end level so it goes the same way for all backends, that would be fantastic. -- Andrei Why? Strictly left-to-right is

Re: Uphill

On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:53:35 +, weaselcat wrote: > you're aware that the dmd backend is proprietary, right? of course. that's why i never submitted any fixes to DMD backend, although i have some. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Status of Deimos bindings

On 26/05/2015 9:33 a.m., FreeSlave wrote: What's the current status of Deimos? I don't think that this kind of bindings is useless, since not everyone always wants dynamic bindings. E.g. for the sake of simplicity or static linking. Actually Walter even fixes issues in these bindings time by time

Re: Uphill

On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 at 02:14:46 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:53:35 +, weaselcat wrote: you're aware that the dmd backend is proprietary, right? of course. that's why i never submitted any fixes to DMD backend, although i have some. was just making sure while I agree

Re: Status of Deimos bindings

On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 at 03:51:22 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: On 26/05/2015 9:33 a.m., FreeSlave wrote: What's the current status of Deimos? I don't think that this kind of bindings is useless, since not everyone always wants dynamic bindings. E.g. for the sake of simplicity or static linkin

Re: Status of Deimos bindings

And some CTFE magic to create static bindings from those (if wanted).

Re: Evaluation order of index expressions

On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 15:35:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: would hope good code would avoid. But defining the order of evaluation as left-to-right, doesn't make those problems go away. At best, it makes them consistent, and that may be worth it, but it's not a silver bullet. And it takes o

Re: Uphill

On 26 May 2015 00:30, "ketmar via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 May 2015 18:34:24 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > Yes, they do. The key difference is that GCC doesn't require you to > > delve into it's backend, as a language implementer, you

Re: shared libs for OSX

On 2015-05-25 22:58, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 25 May 2015 at 19:40:52 UTC, bitwise wrote: 1) _dyld_register_func_for_add_image should be taken care of with the above two fixes You still cannot unregister the callback, so it can't be used for dynamically loading druntime. Last time we tal

Re: shared libs for OSX

On 2015-05-25 21:40, bitwise wrote: So then I think I have a full solution: 1) _dyld_register_func_for_add_image should be taken care of with the above two fixes 2) __attribute__((constructor/destructor)) can be added to druntime when building for osx like in the file dylib_fixes.c [1] 3) copy p

  1   2   >