Hi all,
is there a platform independent way to do the equivalent of
some_program /dev/null /dev/null using std.process?
I neither want to capture/print the standard output of the child
process nor have anything available on its input.
Quite probably, I'm just missing something obvious…
On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 at 20:00:43 UTC, Justin Whear wrote:
For POSIX, seems like you could pass `File(/dev/null, r)`
for stdin
and `File(/dev/null, w)`. On Windows I believe you can use
`File
(nul)` for the same effect.
Implementing this myself is of course always an option, yes, but
On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 12:03:49 UTC, Tom Browder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Between bugs, code.lang.org, etc., I must have multiple log-in
accounts and i've run out of e-mail addresses. Can't there be a
single account for dlang.org?
The systems run on different machines and are managed by
On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 11:44:53 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
Regarding the D ABI, http://dlang.org/abi.html , I've noticed
that the description for dynamic arrays seems ambiguous:
offset property contents
0.length array dimension
size_t .ptr pointer to array
On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 12:50:50 UTC, Tom Browder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
All three use an e-mail or user name, but none can be the same
apparently.
This is not the case. Maybe you just had accounts at the other
sites already?
Of course, you could also be hitting some strange bug. In
On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 13:11:24 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
Ah, OK. I was mislead by the following:
1: int[] a1 = [42];
2: ubyte[] a2 = cast(ubyte[]) a1;
3: writeln(a2);
Ah, that clears up the confusion. Array casts are smart and
automatically divide down the length
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 16:50:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/11/2014 4:34 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Not memory safe implies (is supposed to imply) not @safe but
not @safe does not
imply not memory safe.
@safe in D == memory safe.
What Timon is saying is that not all memory safe code
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 03:33:41 UTC, Khaled wrote:
If you like one of these designs and require some modifications
then send me your feedbacks so I can update it accordingly.
I like the design in principle, but it doesn't seem to spell D
to my eyes at all, like others have already
Hi all,
Somebody (I think bearophile) mentioned a while back that they
had a folder with all the D solutions from Rosettacode.
I'm looking for some small stand-alone compiler benchmarks, so
I'd very much appreciate if whoever it was could contact me via
mail.
Thanks,
David
On Sunday, 15 June 2014 at 20:14:09 UTC, Brad Roberts via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
While I agree that some of these points are true, what's not
true is that the use of bugzilla and it's separateness from
github is the cause. Bugzilla has a similar set of features
for categorization and future
On Sunday, 15 June 2014 at 20:51:59 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
My proposal for using one homogeneous system is geared on the
idea that people doesn't care to admit that the problem exists
or take initiative to fix it if they never have to look at it.
How do I have to look at the Issues tab on
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 18:25:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 6:34 AM, Dicebot wrote:
It was decided and 100% certain - virtual is not going in.
Need to
remove it from DMD before this release is out.
Yes please. -- Andrei
Since we didn't seem to have a pull request for
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 18:43:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it
allows DMDFE code to be moved into Phobos without issues.
I don't think Nick's argument is particularly compelling, but the
DDMD - Phobos connection definitely makes the
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 11:16:57 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 10:38:08 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Technically you can run 64bit applications on 32bit OS X if
you have a 64bit CPU.
Really? The other way round, yes, but this would really
surprise me...
Yes.
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 16:45:19 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
The case which you described is a not a type safety problem.
If a struct type has a non-trivial invariant(), .init allows an
object to exist that violates it without an Error being thrown.
Arguing that this is not part of the
On Monday, 9 June 2014 at 17:36:10 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
Can I use the version keyword or static if to perform
conditional compilation that depends on the version of DMD?
The __VERSION__ magic token should do the job.
David
Hi all,
I just noticed that all the sessions from NDC Oslo 2014 are
available online in video form at
http://vimeo.com/channels/ndc2014.
Andrei's talks (including the one on D) are also among the
videos, if you haven't watched them yet.
David
On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 at 17:35:42 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
This all sounds like implementation detail rather than API
usage.
How can an API problem be an implementation detail? I'm not quite
getting your point here.
David
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 18:06:08 UTC, Mattcoder wrote:
I think it would be a nice for learning experience and
contributing more with community.
It's always great to see new people interested in helping out
with compiler development. Just follow your natural curiosity and
don't let the
On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 05:10:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/28/14, 10:28 AM, Dicebot wrote:
I'd love to see Andrei comment about it to either update its
status or remove from review queue.
I will work on it but std.allocator takes precedence. If anyone
is in a hurry, please take
On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 05:20:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Also please don't analyze this to death. It's meant to reduce
friction, not increase this.
I'm not sure whether your comment was just targeted at the naming
discussions, but in general, I find it very valid to discuss the
Currently, core.atmoic contains severe bugs and is virtually
untested for composite types. For example:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12823.
The question is: What kind of types we actually want to support?
Or, to phrase it differently, is there a reason not to support
arbitrary
On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 13:35:59 UTC, Thomas wrote:
gdc ./source/perf/testperf.d -frelease -o testperf
This effectively compiles the program without optimizations. Try
-O3 or -Ofast.
David
Hi all,
There seems to have been some discussion regarding
std.experimental at DConf, as several proposals to add modules to
it have popped up over the last few days. Maybe Andrei's keynote
had something on it (I unfortunately missed it)?
In any case, could somebody please outline the
On Monday, 19 May 2014 at 17:59:43 UTC, steven kladitis wrote:
I see that this thread is over 3 years old. I am totally
enjoying D. I love assembler programming. I am just
dissapointed that there is simple way to compile 64 bit code as
of 2014 in windows. I am still unable to compile 64 bit
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 10:39:32 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Instead (or in addition) of this dmd compiler switch:
-vgc list all hidden gc allocations
Isn't it more useful a compiler switch like -noruntime
(similar to the switch of the ldc2 compiler) meant to list the
lines of code
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 18:47:46 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
Please don't ask useful-less questions.
One can tell all the advantages of 64 bits or you can use the
Wikipedia.
You might want to read my response again. I specifically asked
How does the current 64 bit version of DMD fall short of
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 19:15:59 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
Yes dmd supports x64 on windows but it doesn't work without
external tools.
DMD on Linux doesn't work without external tools (system GCC/ld)
either.
Microsoft provides the required tools for free and they are not
difficult to
On Sunday, 18 May 2014 at 11:58:20 UTC, bioinfornatics wrote:
Woa uOuh shared lib support added :-)
I love you
Unfortunately building Phobos as a shared library is not quite
supported yet. I added the technical underpinnings for it, but we
still need somebody to go through and acutely
On Sunday, 18 May 2014 at 10:33:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood - I thought the change preserves
semantics. -- Andrei
There are two layers to the changes discussed in this thread. The
first is to remove __monitor from Object. This is something I
think we all agree
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 06:50:06 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 06:29:06 UTC, bearophile wrote:
A little example of D purity (this compiles):
bool randomBit() pure nothrow @safe {
return (new int[1].ptr) (new int[1].ptr);
}
Yes, and then you may as well
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 13:40:16 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Why should returning a mutable pointer imply weak purity?
The argument here is that a valid mutable pointer returned from a
pure function could always point to a new allocation, as new is
allowed in pure code.
More
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 13:42:58 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 09:24:54 -0400, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
That's the wrong attitude to take when it comes to the
compiler and runtime.
There are always ways around the guarantees.
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 15:09:32 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
But in this case, you have ignored the rules, […]
Which rules exactly? My point is mainly that this area of the
language is underspecified.
This means format(%x, ptr) isn't allowed to be pure?
The short answer would
Niko Matsakis, Mozilla employee and member of the Rust core team,
published a blog post on the terminology regarding mutability and
uniqueness in Rust yesterday:
http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2014/05/13/focusing-on-ownership/
It's not directly related to the discussion we are
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 14:24:28 UTC, Damian Day wrote:
I've written some search functions, which are many times
faster, is it
worth making a pull request?
Generally, we strive to make the algorithms in Phobos as fast as
possible even in the general case. I didn't look at the issue at
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 15:42:13 UTC, Damian Day wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 14:54:57 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
Could you post a short benchmark snippet explicitly showing
the problem?
Benchmark found here:
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/0058fc8341830
Unfortunately, I don't have the
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 17:36:35 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
Adding a special case in Array.Range allows bypassing the
repeated indexing costs, but at the very least, should be
implemented in terms of find itself, eg:
Shouldn't the extra indirection just vanish into thin air once
opIndex
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 at 16:30:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
For what practical reason would that be the case? I know that
the spec states undefined behavior, but AFAICS, there is
neither an existing, nor a theoretical reason, why this should
fail:
Compiler optimizations based on
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 20:11:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
HashDRBGStream!() randStream;
//aka:
// HashDRBGStream!(SHA512, D Crypto RNG) randStream;
The stream version isn't a range and only supports filling a
provided ubyte[] buffer. So no element type.
Shouldn't that take an ubyte
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 21:01:20 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
Shouldn't that take an ubyte output range instead?
Erm, scrap that, wasn't thinking.
David
On Sunday, 27 April 2014 at 11:13:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
Also, there is an `expand()` method, but no `shrink()`. Is that
an oversight, or intentional?
If I remember correctly, this was discussed in the initial review
of Andrei's proposal (just search the NG for std.allocator).
David
On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 18:11:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/26/2014 4:57 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Necessity to define namespaces for
interfacing with C++ must not result in usage of namespaces of
pure D code.
Why?
I don't see much of any use for namespaces in pure D code, […]
This is
On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 21:57:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Which is all the DIP adds. I do not really understand the
objections.
It adds a new language feature, which is not just used only in a
rather specific situation, but also very likely to be confused
with the eponymous feature from
On Friday, 25 April 2014 at 07:14:48 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
Hi,everyone,
Here has a error after run: main.exe 11 or main.exe 10 :
[…]
Why?
size_t (the return type of your find()) is always non-negative,
hence the if condition is never false.
In the future, you might want to consider
On Friday, 25 April 2014 at 12:07:00 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
One interesting thing about this is that the compiler
implementation may make some @nogc code valid on some
compilers, and invalid on others, even though the resulting
execution is the same.
I don't think this is a
601 - 646 of 646 matches
Mail list logo
