On 26/07/12 09:05, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-25 22:39, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
What is the state of the missing exception handling for Windows?
I just read an old post on the Clang mailing list, it's not looking
good. It seems Microsoft (or someone else) has a patent on SEH,
I've
On 29/07/12 23:36, bearophile wrote:
Era Scarecrow:
Another commonly needed operation is a very fast bit count. There
are very refined algorithms to do this.
Likely similar to the hamming weight table mentioned in TDPL.
Combined with the canUseBulk I think I could make it fairly fast.
On 29/07/12 13:43, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 06:08:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull
walk-through tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of contribution,
and let's resume the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
I
On 30/07/12 13:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/30/12 4:34 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 30-Jul-12 06:01, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
In fact memcpy could and should be replaced with word by word copy for
almost all of struct sizes up to ~32 bytes (as size is known in advance
for this
On 30/07/12 17:40, bearophile wrote:
This author writes very detailed analyses of low-level computational
matters, that appear on Reddit. This blog post he suggests to introduce
offseted binary or quaternary search instead of binary search in
Phobos:
On 30/07/12 14:32, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-30 12:30, torhu wrote:
version is good for global options that you set with -version on the
command line. And can also be used internally in a module, but doesn't
work across modules. But it seems you have discovered this the hard way
On 26/07/12 00:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/25/2012 2:55 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
std\regex.d(5118): Error: undefined identifier 'L_jumptable'
I was afraid of that. You may have to approximate it by loading the
address of L_jumptable into a register and adding it in instead of
using
the
On 25/07/12 14:32, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-25 09:43, Don Clugston wrote:
We don't need this complexity. The solution is *trivial*. We just need
to decide in advance that we will target a release every X weeks, and
that it should be delayed only for reasons of stability.
Yeah
On 25/07/12 09:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/24/2012 11:46 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
It's pc = address because one can first preprocess all of byte code
doing
opcode = address rewrites. But you can't do it unless taking address
of labels
is possible.
All right, that's the piece that was
On 25/07/12 09:55, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 25-Jul-12 11:51, Don Clugston wrote:
On 25/07/12 09:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/24/2012 11:46 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
It's pc = address because one can first preprocess all of byte code
doing
opcode = address rewrites. But you can't do
On 23/07/12 15:29, bearophile wrote:
After a discussion in D.learn started by someone else, after a
suggestion of mine Timon Gehr has added a bug report:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8400
But the bug was fixed in the opposite way of what I was thinking.
The problem was that
On 25/07/12 12:11, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/25/2012 12:51 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
so that there is no lookup table, just a multiply.
Rethinking your idea a bit...
Suppose the switch jump_address[] array was really an array of hardcoded
jmp instructions, 5 bytes each:
jmp_table:
jmp
On 20/07/12 17:12, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
According to TDPL postfix operators are rewritten to call prefix
operators, e.g. on this call for some user-type object named a:
auto b = a++;
// is converted to:
auto b = ((ref x) { auto t = x; ++x; return t; })(a);
But I don't see how this is
On 16/07/12 09:51, Adam Wilson wrote:
As a result of the D Versioning thread, we have decided to create a new
organization on Github called dlang-stable. This organization will be
responsible for maintaining stable releases of DMD, DRuntime, and Phobos.
So what is a stable release?
A stable
On 23/07/12 17:04, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 23 July 2012 at 14:46:30 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
The more general form would be to make variable declaration an
expression.
Right, and that would be pretty amazing, but it would probably
be too hard to do in D today...
The bizarre
On 16/07/12 16:51, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 06:00:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Supporting Win64 is absolutely critical for the future of D, and the
sooner we get it, the better. The COFF route is the shortest route to
doing it, and the most practical for attracting
On 10/07/12 16:59, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/10/12 9:59 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 09:28:51AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/10/12 2:50 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-09 22:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
So foo is a range of strings, because each
On 13/07/12 12:52, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:53:07 +0200
schrieb Don Clugston d...@nospam.com:
On 13/07/12 11:16, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Casting from void[] to ubyte[] is currently not allowed in CTFE. Is
there a special reason for this? I don't see how this cast can
On 13/07/12 11:02, F i L wrote:
I always wondered why toString() wasn't just to!string() in the first
place, short of UFCS not being implemented for all types.
toString() comes from the days before D had templates.
On 13/07/12 09:11, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-13 08:52, Adam Wilson wrote:
I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community
disagreement with this...
If he's not against it, I see know reason why this haven't been done
already.
It has. It's called D1.
On 13/07/12 11:16, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Casting from void[] to ubyte[] is currently not allowed in CTFE. Is
there a special reason for this? I don't see how this cast can be
dangerous?
CTFE doesn't allow ANY form of reinterpret cast, apart from
signed-unsigned. In particular, you can't do
On 12/07/12 06:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Required reading prior to this: http://goo.gl/eXpuX
You destroyed, we listened.
I think Christophe makes a great point. We've been all thinking inside
the box but we should question the very existence of the box. Once the
necessity of opCmp,
On 12/07/12 12:00, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 08:59:46 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/07/12 06:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Required reading prior to this: http://goo.gl/eXpuX
You destroyed, we listened.
I think Christophe makes a great point. We've been all thinking
On 12/07/12 11:12, John Colvin wrote:
When I compile the following code with -m32 and -m64 i get a totally
different result, the documentation suggests that they should be the
same...
import core.stdc.stdarg, std.stdio;
void main() {
foo(0,5,4,3);
}
void foo(int dummy, ...) {
On 10/07/12 19:13, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 06:48:51PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/10/2012 06:45 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yeah, this is logical const. Unfortunately, D doesn't have logical
const.
Then why on earth is druntime acting as if it does?
Y'know, this brings up
On 11/07/12 13:47, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 11:18:21 UTC, akaz wrote:
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be defined.
Problem is that operator!! is already used asa twin operator!. This
is shorthand for is valid as bool:
I wouldn't be
On 10/07/12 09:49, renoX wrote:
On Monday, 9 July 2012 at 11:40:37 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
[cut]
You're right. This is a bit advanced code sample, which uses
templates,template constraints, contract programming among syntax
advantages of D.
Hum it show the power of D sure, but IMHO it
On 02/07/12 23:20, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2012 1:04 PM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Put final in front of y, and it will compile. Remember, this was
done for D1
that didn't have const.
I see. So in D2 are we going to require that y to be immutable?
No. I don't agree there's a
On 28/06/12 18:37, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 15:28:10 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
There's an oddity, though: the type of X.significand would be
dependent on the type of X […]
I don't think this is a problem at all – for example, the type of T.init
depends on T as well
On 28/06/12 18:36, Jens Mueller wrote:
Don Clugston wrote:
On 28/06/12 17:00, Jens Mueller wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/28/12 10:07 AM, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
On Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 14:04:37 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
I think just exposing them via .sig and .exp might be the way
On 01/07/12 04:00, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/30/2012 6:05 PM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
It's not a bug. It's deliberate, and is there to support mechanical
translation of Java code.
Is this stuff written somewhere in a D design rationales page?
Now that D is several years old, how
On 25/06/12 20:04, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Monday, 25 June 2012 at 16:09:43 UTC, Felix Hufnagel wrote:
+1 for
hashes into std.hash
and cryptographic primitives into std.crypto
and we should have a std.net (std.uri, std.socket, std.socketstream ,
std.net.curl, ...),
std.io. for (Outbuffer,
On 29/06/12 08:04, bearophile wrote:
This is a very easy to read article about the design of LLVM:
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/the-design-of-llvm/240001128
That IR has a great effect on making it simpler to debug the compiler, I
think this is important (and I think it
On 28/06/12 15:31, Jens Mueller wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/22/12 7:41 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
I think the main thing that's still done in C is the floating point
formatting.
Would be great if a contributor could translate FP parsing and
formatting code into D. Then we can use
On 28/06/12 17:00, Jens Mueller wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/28/12 10:07 AM, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
On Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 14:04:37 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
I think just exposing them via .sig and .exp might be the way to go?
sig is easy to confuse with sign
.mantissa and .exp
On 25/06/12 14:24, bearophile wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky:
Except for the fact, that someone has to implement it.
I am not seeing one of the posts of this thread. So I'll answer here.
The good thing regarding the run-time overflow integral tests is that
they are already implemented and
On 22/06/12 10:08, Mehrdad wrote:
On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 08:00:08 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Then implement the ones you happen to actually need.
Er, the question isn't WHAT to do, it's HOW.
If you have any idea how to implement things like TLS, SEH, and the
like, then PLEASE, share
On 20/06/12 16:37, Manu wrote:
On 20 June 2012 17:15, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com
mailto:d...@nospam.com wrote:
On 20/06/12 13:22, Manu wrote:
I find optimisers are very good at code simplification, assuming
that
you massage the code/expressions to neatly match
On 19/06/12 11:02, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 19 June 2012 09:18, Don Clugstond...@nospam.com wrote:
So would I. Can you think of one?
It was the best name I could come up with, given that the 'pure' was the
keyword.
We want a word that means 'no hidden state'.
I thought that was what pure was
On 19/06/12 20:19, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
Had round one of the code review process, so I'm going to post the main
issues here that most affect D users / the platforms they want to run on
/ the compiler version they want to use.
1) D Inline Asm and naked function support is raising far too
On 20/06/12 03:01, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 20-06-2012 02:58, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/20/2012 02:04 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 20-06-2012 01:55, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/20/2012 12:47 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 19-06-2012 23:52, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/19/2012 1:36 PM,
On 20/06/12 00:55, Manu wrote:
On 20 June 2012 01:07, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 6/19/2012 1:58 PM, Manu wrote:
I find a thorough suite of architecture intrinsics are usually
the fastest and
cleanest way to
On 20/06/12 13:04, Manu wrote:
On 20 June 2012 13:51, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com
mailto:d...@nospam.com wrote:
On 19/06/12 20:19, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
Had round one of the code review process, so I'm going to post
the main
issues here that most affect D
On 20/06/12 13:22, Manu wrote:
On 20 June 2012 13:59, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com
mailto:d...@nospam.com wrote:
You and I seem to be from different planets. I have almost never
written as asm function which was suitable for inlining.
Take a look at std.internal.math.biguintX86.d
On 20/06/12 14:51, Manu wrote:
On 20 June 2012 14:44, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com
mailto:d...@nospam.com wrote:
On 20/06/12 13:04, Manu wrote:
On 20 June 2012 13:51, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com
mailto:d...@nospam.com
mailto:d...@nospam.com mailto:d...@nospam.com
On 18/06/12 17:00, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 06/18/12 16:41, deadalnix wrote:
Le 18/06/2012 16:28, Artur Skawina a écrit :
It's fine, if you view a delegate as opaque.
No it isn't. You cannot ensure transitivity anywhere. This have obvious, and
severe drawback for concurrent programing
On 17/06/12 00:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time taken on
semantic1().
Do you have data that shows otherwise?
Nothing recent, it's mostly from my C++ compiler testing.
But you
On 14/06/12 10:10, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:03:05 Don Clugston wrote:
On 13/06/12 16:29, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2012 1:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull
On 10/06/12 23:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 10, 2012 23:23:57 Mehrdad wrote:
I honestly don't see the POINT of having a dynamic array
literal.
What's the point of making the literals dynamic?
They should all be static, and only converted to dynamic if
necessary from the
On 13/06/12 16:29, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2012 1:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like to
suggest
further ideas.
As far as I understand, di interface files try to achieve
On 12/06/12 11:07, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like to
suggest further ideas.
As far as I understand, di interface files try to achieve these
conflicting goals:
1) speed up
On 05/06/12 17:44, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 13:57:14 Don Clugston wrote:
On 05/06/12 09:07, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 08:53:16 Don Clugston wrote:
On 04/06/12 21:29, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:20:56 -0400, Don Clugstond
On 04/06/12 21:29, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:20:56 -0400, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com wrote:
1. There exist cases where you cannot know why the assert failed.
2. Therefore you never know why an assert failed.
3. Therefore it is not safe to unwind the stack from
On 04/06/12 20:46, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-06-04 10:03, Don Clugston wrote:
AST macros were discussed informally on the day after the conference,
and it quickly became clear that the proposed ones were nowhere near
powerful enough. Since that time nobody has come up with another
proposal
On 05/06/12 09:07, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 08:53:16 Don Clugston wrote:
On 04/06/12 21:29, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:20:56 -0400, Don Clugstond...@nospam.com wrote:
1. There exist cases where you cannot know why the assert failed.
2
On 14/04/12 16:52, F i L wrote:
On Saturday, 14 April 2012 at 10:38:45 UTC, Silveri wrote:
On Saturday, 14 April 2012 at 07:52:51 UTC, F i L wrote:
On Saturday, 14 April 2012 at 06:43:11 UTC, Manfred Nowak wrote:
F i L wrote:
4) use hardware signalling to overcome some of the limitations
On 01/06/12 21:37, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-06-01 17:47, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
Where can I read more about Bartosz's race-free type system and if there
are some specific ideas already, AST macros for D as well?
AST macros have been mentioned in the newsgroups several times. There
was a
On 03/06/12 19:31, tn wrote:
On Friday, 1 June 2012 at 01:57:36 UTC, kenji hara wrote:
I'd like to propose a new language feature to D community.
...
This patch is an additional enhancement of opDollar (issue 3474 and
#442).
Sounds awesome. However, the name opDollar should be changed to
On 01/06/12 12:26, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/1/2012 1:48 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 01.06.2012 5:16, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/31/2012 3:22 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 31.05.2012 13:06, deadalnix wrote:
This is called failing gracefully. And this highly recommended, and
you
KNOW that
On 01/06/12 22:35, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/1/2012 11:14 AM, deadalnix wrote:
We are talking about runing scope statement and finally when unwiding
the stack,
not trying to continue the execution of the program.
Which will be running arbitrary code not anticipated by the assert
failure, and
On 04/06/12 15:38, bearophile wrote:
David Nadlinger:
Actually, I'd say its the other way round – opDollar rather
corresponds to opDoubleEqualSign, as it simply describes the character
used.
I agree. It's the opposite of the semantic names of the original
operator overloading set.
You mean
On 30/05/12 17:33, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2012-05-30 14:44:37 +, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:35:12 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
Personally, I think it'd be much cleaner to go with some kind of
magic function than trying
On 30/05/12 21:49, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 30-05-2012 21:46, Kagamin wrote:
On Friday, 18 May 2012 at 07:58:26 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
were some concerns about using Git on Windows. People claimed that Git
was a very Linux-centric tool, and that Windows support was buggy at
best.
On 29/05/12 19:35, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 at 12:08:08 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
And to set the record straight -- the relaxed purity ideas were not my
idea.
I forget who first said them, but it wasn't me. I just championed them.
Unfortunately, I don't quite remember
On 29/05/12 16:20, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2012-05-29 13:29:35 +, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com said:
On 27/05/12 02:45, Walter Bright wrote:
You could implement it as simply comparing the addresses - you'd be no
worse off than C is, and you would get the correct answer for pointers
both
On 29/05/12 23:23, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Don Clugstond...@nospam.com wrote:
Is there any way to improve it?
Oh yeah. Orders of magnitude, easily.
!
The slowness is not in any way
inherent to CTFE. The experience will be completely different, once I
On 30/05/12 10:40, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:26:36 deadalnix wrote:
The fact that error don't trigger scope and everything is nonsensial.
If an Error is truly unrecoverable (as they're generally supposed to be), then
what does it matter? Something fatal occured in
On 30/05/12 01:47, Mehrdad wrote:
Just a general note: going the make a special case for two comparisons
route won't work if, for example, someone decides to use a lambda for
comparing pointers.
You mean effectively like:
bool cmp(void *x, void *y)
{
return x y:
}
assert ( cmp(x, y)
On 30/05/12 12:59, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:32:00 Don Clugston wrote:
On 30/05/12 10:40, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:26:36 deadalnix wrote:
The fact that error don't trigger scope and everything is nonsensial.
If an Error is truly
On 27/05/12 22:56, David Nadlinger wrote:
Some of you might remember that I have been meaning to write a
comprehensive introduction to design and use of purity for quite some
while now – I finally got around to do so:
http://klickverbot.at/blog/2012/05/purity-in-d/
Feedback and criticism of
On 28/05/12 03:40, Chang Long wrote:
On Saturday, 26 May 2012 at 15:56:38 UTC, Chang Long wrote:
CTFE execute will be very useful on web develop, for example It is
very hard to create a CTFE version template engine with rich feature.
But we can use execute call to transe template file to d code
On 29/05/12 12:25, Manu wrote:
I've been trying to work out why my compile times have gone to hell
recently.
I have a lib, it takes 3.5 seconds to compile.
I add one CTFE heavy module, it's not huge, certainly much smaller than
the rest of the app, and it blows out to 18 seconds. I've done some
On 27/05/12 02:45, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/26/2012 3:59 AM, Don wrote:
Yes, that's what happens now. But that doesn't help the programmer.
If it is inside, no problem, the expression is true. But if it is not
inside,
the expression is not false -- it's a compile-time error.
Ok, I
The current implementation of CTFE strictly enforces C pointer
semantics. One of the restrictions is that you cannot perform ordering
comparisons between unrelated pointers.
This is important for repeatability: if it was permitted, the results
would be arbitrary and might vary unpredictably
On 13/05/12 21:28, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/13/2012 5:31 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
With the workflow of bugzilla/svn it was just copy and pasting the diff
into the bug report. I understand it is easier on Walter's side, though.
Yes, it is definitely easier on my side.
But consider that the
On 24/05/12 02:26, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 23-05-2012 19:16, deadalnix wrote:
Le 23/05/2012 17:29, Don Clugston a écrit :
There's a huge difference between a global collection *may* be
performed from a pure function vs it *must* be possible to force a
global collection from a pure
On 23/05/12 11:41, bearophile wrote:
Simen Kjaeraas:
Should this be filed as a bug, or is the plan that only pure functions be
ctfe-able? (or has someone already filed it, perhaps)
It's already in Bugzilla, see issue 7994 and 6169.
It's just happening because the purity checking is
On 23/05/12 07:05, Mehrdad wrote:
We should make 'pure' mean strongly pure.
For weakly pure, we could introduce the 'doped' keyword :-D
No, the keyword should be more like @noglobal
I wish people would stop using this weak purity / strong purity
terminology, it's very unhelpful. (And it's
On 23/05/12 05:22, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I have come across a dilemma.
Alex Rønne Petersen has a pull request changing some things in the GC to
pure. I think gc_collect() should be weak-pure, because it could
technically run on any memory allocation (which is already allowed in
pure
On 23/05/12 15:56, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 23-05-2012 15:17, Don Clugston wrote:
On 23/05/12 05:22, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I have come across a dilemma.
Alex Rønne Petersen has a pull request changing some things in the GC to
pure. I think gc_collect() should be weak-pure, because
On 20/05/12 00:38, cal wrote:
Is there a way to limit the dmd compiler to outputting just the first
few errors it comes across?
No, but the intention of DMD is to generate only one error per bug in
your code.
If you are seeing a large number of useless errors, please report it in
bugzilla.
On 11/05/12 00:28, Mehrdad wrote:
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 22:23:15 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 10/05/2012 23:12, Mehrdad wrote:
How do you decide if something is 'critical', 'major', 'blocker', or
just 'normal'? Is
there a rule of thumb I could use?
On 10/05/12 11:02, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Assuming that LLVM is not an acceptable backend despite its permissive
licence, and that the community can't buy out the code, I'd suggest
again the idea of stabilizing the frontend and then synchronizing DMD,
GDC and LDC updates, with all 3
On 09/05/12 10:16, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 08-05-2012 23:48, Sean Kelly wrote:
On May 8, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
We've previously discussed having _all_ of the C system call
functions from
the various OSes that we support being in druntime, and I very much
think that
On 09/05/12 16:13, bearophile wrote:
Gor Gyolchanyan:
Because the opBinary [...]
Thank for your answer, but I don't carte of why the D compiler accepts
that. I only care about the D compiler statically refusing that.
Bye,
bearophile
I think you're asking for opBinary to be a keyword.
If
On 07/05/12 19:06, deadalnix wrote:
Hi,
Working on D I noticed that some statement, notably assert, are
expression of type void. Why not all statement (that are not expression
already) are expression ?
assert isn't a statement. It's an expression ( same as is() ). What
makes you think it's a
On 08/05/12 09:56, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 4/30/12, Andrej Mitrovicandrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally my gripe with compilation times is that I get very used to
having fast build times where I can go through an edit+compile+run
cycle really fast, but after a while build times get
On 05/05/12 06:57, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
Hi,
I don't think the language really makes it clear whether overflows and
underflows are well-defined. Do we guarantee that for any integral type
T, T.max + 1 == T.min and T.min - 1 == T.max?
This is relevant in particular for GDC and LDC since
On 03/05/12 06:28, James Miller wrote:
I'm writing bindings to XCB right now, and its mostly going smoothly.
However I have encountered a very strange problem.
This bit of code segfaults with DMD:
auto connection = xcb_connect(null, null);
auto setup = xcb_get_setup(connection);
auto iter =
On 30/04/12 01:03, Manu wrote:
On 30 April 2012 01:24, Tove t...@fransson.se
mailto:t...@fransson.se wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 22:13:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
Is it technically possible to have a precise GC clean up all
unreferenced
memory in one big pass?
On 01/05/12 00:33, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/30/2012 11:28 PM, bearophile wrote:
Walter:
The first thing to emphasize is that NONE of this will happen for D2.
The emphasis on D2 is fixing implementation and toolchain issues.
Breaking existing code is off the table unless we are pretty much
On 28/04/12 20:47, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this question. The
idea was which features in D are redundant and/or do not add significant
value?
A couple already agreed upon ones are typedef and the cfloat, cdouble
and creal types.
What's your list?
On 03/05/12 16:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/3/12 9:55 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 28/04/12 20:47, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this question. The
idea was which features in D are redundant and/or do not add significant
value?
A couple already
On 29/04/12 20:08, Manu wrote:
On 29 April 2012 18:50, Don nos...@nospam.com
mailto:nos...@nospam.com wrote:
On 28.04.2012 20:47, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this
question. The
idea was which features in D are redundant
On 30/04/12 05:45, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:40:37PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
[...]
* Do-while loops, how useful are those actually?
I grepped through the DMD source once, looking for how often Walter uses
do..while. The answer: exactly zero.
OK, that got me all
On 30/04/12 12:27, Manu wrote:
On 30 April 2012 10:32, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com
mailto:d...@nospam.com wrote:
On 29/04/12 20:08, Manu wrote:
On 29 April 2012 18:50, Don nos...@nospam.com
mailto:nos...@nospam.com
mailto:nos...@nospam.com mailto:nos...@nospam.com
On 26/04/12 05:44, Walter Bright wrote:
A subtle but nasty problem - are default arguments part of the type, or
part of the declaration?
See http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3866
Currently, they are both, which leads to the nasty behavior in the bug
report.
The problem centers
On 25/04/12 17:38, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 25/04/12 16:58, Kagamin wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2012 at 14:05:14 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Python was widely used before Google support. And I think Haskell has
enjoyed corporate support for a lot of time.
And who's behind PHP?
... but
On 26/04/12 11:28, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/26/2012 10:51 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 26/04/12 05:44, Walter Bright wrote:
A subtle but nasty problem - are default arguments part of the type, or
part of the declaration?
See http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3866
Currently
101 - 200 of 296 matches
Mail list logo
