On 18 March 2018 at 21:34, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 01:15:28 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> Or hire staff who are paid to work on 'boring' issues. I would make
>> regular donations if I could be satisfied that my decade old issues would be
>> addressed. I wonder how
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 14:13:25 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 12:49:22 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
[snip]
It looks like it should expand the alias earlier. No problem
with auto foo (T)(S!(1, T) v) {};
Also, this issue also shows up in mir.ndslice.traits. I had to
do the equ
On Friday, 9 March 2018 at 19:41:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Today I found myself needing a lazy, caching version of map()
on an array. More precisely, given an array `T[] src` of
source data and a function func(T) that's pretty expensive to
compute, return an object `result` such that:
- resu
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 04:15:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Did they at any point te
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 01:15:28 UTC, Manu wrote:
Or hire staff who are paid to work on 'boring' issues. I would
make regular donations if I could be satisfied that my decade
old issues would be addressed. I wonder how many others would
too?
That's actually possible now for corporate spo
On 19/03/2018 5:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018 17:15:26 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
You just said the magic word, medical.
D was never an appropriate fi
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 02:56:32 UTC, Norm wrote:
+1024 bytes
I think D is a terrific language worthy of all the praise it
gets and it is way way more stable than it was 3yrs ago. But
the attitude of submit a PR if you want it fixed works very
much against D. Like it or not these forums a
On Monday, March 19, 2018 17:15:26 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote:
> > On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> >> You just said the magic word, medical.
> >>
> >> D was never an appropriate fit here.
> >>
> >> dmd's backend
On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your company
who was trialing D?
The volunteer line is fine for big picture stuff that is going to require a
lot of work and planing to get right. Using that for smaller feature
requests is going to give the impression that D is lacking in the technical
expertise to get anything done, It's often a sign that an open source
project
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your
company who was trialing D?
Because I do not remember once in t
On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your company
who was trialing D?
Because I do not remember once in that time period of any one saying
this.
Walter has gone out of h
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your
company who was trialing D?
Because I do not remember once in that time period of any one
saying this.
Walter has gone out of his way in the past to help companies
On 18 March 2018 at 19:56, Norm via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:59:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>> On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than you? For
>>> example, my Android port has nev
On 19/03/2018 3:56 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:59:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than you? For
example, my Android port has never gotten much use either, which is
fine as
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:59:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than
you? For example, my Android port has never gotten much use
either, which is fine as I primarily did that work for mysel
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 18:15:28 Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 18 March 2018 at 17:55, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
> > I definitely agree with this. If the folks fixing stuff don't have the
> > same priorities as you, then there's a high risk that what you want to
> > be fixed won't g
On 18 March 2018 at 18:50, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 19/03/2018 2:38 PM, Manu wrote:
>>
>> On 18 March 2018 at 18:29, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19/03/2018 2:21 PM, Manu wrote:
On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digi
On 19/03/2018 2:38 PM, Manu wrote:
On 18 March 2018 at 18:29, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 19/03/2018 2:21 PM, Manu wrote:
On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
For those not in the know, Manu is special.
He is in essence a use case for D him
On 18 March 2018 at 18:29, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 19/03/2018 2:21 PM, Manu wrote:
>>
>> On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For those not in the know, Manu is special.
>>>
>>> He is in essence a use case for D himself.
>>>
>>> We
On 19/03/2018 2:21 PM, Manu wrote:
On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
For those not in the know, Manu is special.
He is in essence a use case for D himself.
We really should be trying to make him happy in terms of blockers.
It's just good business sense.
Sha
On 18 March 2018 at 18:15, Manu wrote:
> On 18 March 2018 at 17:55, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> On Monday, March 19, 2018 00:28:15 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>> > On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote:
>>> >> [...
On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> For those not in the know, Manu is special.
>
> He is in essence a use case for D himself.
>
> We really should be trying to make him happy in terms of blockers.
> It's just good business sense.
>
> Shame we can't throw money a
On 18 March 2018 at 17:55, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 00:28:15 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> > On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >
>> > I want to just justify my apparent o
For those not in the know, Manu is special.
He is in essence a use case for D himself.
We really should be trying to make him happy in terms of blockers.
It's just good business sense.
Shame we can't throw money at him, he would have great ROI value.
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 20:07:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 14:56:04 Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 3/18/18 2:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 13:10:28 Steven Schveighoffer via
> Digitalmars-d
>
> wrote:
>> On 3/18/18
On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than you? For example,
> my Android port has never gotten much use either, which is fine as I
> primarily did that work for myself.
>
> Nevertheless, you have to think of D as like
On Monday, March 19, 2018 00:28:15 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > I want to just justify my apparent over-reaction... I think I'm
> > not
> > the only one that feels this way fair
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote:
[...]
I want to just justify my apparent over-reaction... I think I'm
not
the only one that feels this way fairly often.
Something that seems trivial only invokes over-reaction of this
nature
when
On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote:
> On 18 March 2018 at 02:19, Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>>
>>> What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use?
>>> It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear
On 18 March 2018 at 02:19, Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>> What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use?
>> It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function...
>> It's one of those blocker bugs t
On 18 March 2018 at 06:57, Rubn via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> There was a PR a while ago IIRC, it's probably one of those sitting at the
> back of the queue from 4 years ago or something.
Unacceptable if true.
On 18 March 2018 at 00:47, Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>> What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use?
>> It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function...
>> It's one of those blocker bugs
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 14:56:04 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 3/18/18 2:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 18, 2018 13:10:28 Steven Schveighoffer via
> > Digitalmars-d
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On 3/18/18 4:34 AM, sdvcn wrote:
> >>> dchar v11=dchar.max;
> >>>
> >
On 3/18/18 2:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 13:10:28 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 3/18/18 4:34 AM, sdvcn wrote:
dchar v11=dchar.max;
auto vp11 = [v11];
auto v2 = cast(ubyte[]) (vp11); //v2.length=4
auto v22 = cast(ubyte[])( [v1
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 13:10:28 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 3/18/18 4:34 AM, sdvcn wrote:
> > dchar v11=dchar.max;
> >
> > auto vp11 = [v11];
> >
> > auto v2 = cast(ubyte[]) (vp11); //v2.length=4
> > auto v22 = cast(ubyte[])( [v11]); //v2.length=1
>
> Thi
On 3/18/18 4:34 AM, sdvcn wrote:
dchar v11=dchar.max;
auto vp11 = [v11];
auto v2 = cast(ubyte[]) (vp11); //v2.length=4
auto v22 = cast(ubyte[])( [v11]); //v2.length=1
This seems like a bug to me.
It appears that v22 has truncated v11 to a byte and made only a single
byte ar
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:37:32 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Manu wrote:
What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE
can use?
It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function...
It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10
years.
nobody bothered. it is al
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 07:47:24 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE
can use?
It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function...
It's one of those blocker bugs that's been t
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 06:28:11 UTC, Amorphorious wrote:
And who the fuck are you? See, it's funny how you say I'm a
noob with mental problems that says shit about people yet you
are doing THE EXACT SAME THING! At the very least, you are no
better than me, in fact worse, because you preten
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 06:46:17 UTC, Uknown wrote:
https://opensource.com/article/18/3/avoid-humiliating-newcomers
Its a blog post about how sometimes expert programmers treat
newcomers badly. I haven't really noticed any of what he
mentions in the D community, as most of the regular m
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 07:06:37 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
It may not be distributor greed: I was one of the founders of a
WordPerfect distributor in Turkey in around 1991.
Cool :-)
I don't know whether it was the US government rules or
WordPerfect rules but they simply could not sell us an
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 06:28:11 UTC, Amorphorious wrote:
We might as well add an IQ test too it, the one with the lower
IQ kills himself and does the rest of humanity a favor? Or is
this another deal you will reject?
Just wow.
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE
can use?
It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function...
It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10
years.
It's been available in LDC since 1.6.0.
h
dchar v11=dchar.max;
auto vp11 = [v11];
auto v2 = cast(ubyte[]) (vp11); //v2.length=4
auto v22 = cast(ubyte[])( [v11]); //v2.length=1
y22.length <> v2.length
Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use?
It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function...
It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years.
Not all that much.
On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE
can use?
It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function...
It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10
years.
Not all that much. Can you give me an exa
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 13:30:25 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
It makes no sense otherwise. This logically implies that manual
memory management is required, yet there is a possibility that
the parent of the class may use the garbage collection. Which
in this case, it begs the question on why t
On 03/17/2018 02:31 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> I don't know about compilers specifically, but the big distributors in
> Europe charged some hefty margins on their imports. So pricing in US was
> often much lower than here...
It may not be distributor greed: I was one of the founders of a
49 matches
Mail list logo
