On Thursday, 16 August 2018 at 20:30:26 UTC, John Belmonte wrote:
These are novel control structures for managing concurrency.
Combining this with cooperative multitasking and explicit,
plainly-visible context switching (i.e. async/await-- sorry
Olshansky) yields something truly
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 20:05:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
But that is the point, this is Python specific, and yet the
motivating example is a misunderstanding of how Go is used.
This inconsistency seriously undermines the general argument.
I don't believe I misunderstand how Go is
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 16:49:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Have you tried asyncio in the Python standard library? Is Trio
better?
The library that Guido admits is a disaster?
https://twitter.com/gvanrossum/status/938445451908472832
Trio and libraries like it have evolved out of
On Friday, 17 August 2018 at 06:36:36 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Because we have an event loop, we don't need a nursery! It
comes free of charge. It also means we don't need that with
statement... hang on that now becomes await and async! Just
without the await (auto added in scope(exit),
On Thursday, 16 August 2018 at 23:33:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
However, it would seem to require language support, no? It's
going to be a tough sell to Walter & Andrei if it requires
language support. (Though IMO it's worth it.)
To implement scoped nursery and cancellation? I hope it could
This is actually not about war; rather the peace and prosperity
of people writing concurrent programs.
(Andrei, I hope you are reading and will check out
https://vorpus.org/blog/notes-on-structured-concurrency-or-go-statement-considered-harmful/
and
Interesting (and way too detailed for me) tale of GC adventures
in golang:
https://blog.golang.org/ismmkeynote
On Saturday, 16 June 2018 at 08:39:07 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On Friday, 15 June 2018 at 23:04:40 UTC, Sjoerd Nijboer wrote:
T* he `async` & `await` keyword from C# make proactor pattern
async code extremely easy to reason about.
God please no. Look at Go’s popularity because of dead
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 01:19:44 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
I've created a git repo
https://github.com/timotheecour/D_vs_nim/ with the goal: up to
date and objective comparison of features between D and nim,
and 1:1 map of features, tools, idioms and libraries to help D
users learn nim and
FWIW, my dmd bug fix PR is getting languish-y.
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8051
Ideally a good bug fix shouldn't sit around for a week. Why I'd
call this one good:
* in addition to reported bug (struct initializer incorrectly
parsed as function literal), a read of the code
On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 22:33:37 UTC, Aedt wrote:
- C standard library in the standard
I noticed that core.stdc.math is missing M_PI and similar
constants. Before -betterC I imagine it was considered
sufficient that the constants are in phobos.
Would anyone else like to see these
On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 04:25:00 UTC, Seb wrote:
- Every time a PR is merged at dmd, druntime or phobos ALL
auto-tester results get invalidated
If a change on the destination branch causes a PR to require an
automatic merge, certainly build and tests should be rerun. But
if the two
On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 01:51:49 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
I believe what happened is a different PR was merged. When a
PR is merged, all tests are invalidated, and the autotester
begins testing them again.
There is also a priority affecting which PRs get tested first.
Those that are
I'm trying to understand why my pull request was queued in D2
Auto-Test for only 2 of 8 tests, with the remaining left in
pending state.
https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/pull-history.ghtml?projectid=1=1=8051
Since there are pending tests, I'd expect it to appear in the
standard priority
On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 at 18:53:26 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
We're moving towards using ASCII rather than Ascii as the
naming style for abbreviations.
I don't agree with this style. Camel case employs capitalization
as a word delineation cue in lieu of spaces. Incorporating
On Monday, 28 May 2012 at 12:27:09 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
I played with this idea with my own Pegged
(https://github.com/PhilippeSigaud/Pegged), but I wasn't quite
convinced by the result, exactly for the reason above. Also,
when
looking at real-world Spirit examples, I was a bit
On Thursday, 1 March 2012 at 15:10:36 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
mixin(Grammar!(Doc - Node*
Node - OpeningTag (Text / Node)* ClosingTag, NodeAction,
OpeningTag - '' Identifier '', OpeningAction,
ClosingTag - `/` Identifier '', ClosingAction,
Text - (!(OpeningTag / ClosingTag) _)+));
That
Status update:
I created a pull request for the trivial change required to allow
UFCS on opaque structs. Kenji Hara balked at the change however,
on the grounds that it opens up function hijacking. I argued why
that is not true-- at least using Walter's original definition of
hijacking.
On Saturday, 26 May 2012 at 16:01:25 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I had a look at the Nimrod language, the template and macro
features look really cool. I would love to have those in D.
I would be great to see such a mechanism employed to increase the
power-to-weight ratio of the D language
Tracking at http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8127
I noticed that the newsgroup archive (which search function
relies on via Google) hasn't been updated since last month. Does
something need a kick?
It's frustrating not to be able to search through the last
several weeks of messages.
On Sunday, 20 May 2012 at 13:53:21 UTC, Mike Wey wrote:
On my system it looks like the order of the commands passed on
to ld differ depending on if -Xlinker is used.
gcc passes some default paths to the linker like: -L/lib/ and
-L/usr/lib/, now commands passed on to the linker with -Xlinker
I'm having a problem where the link command line generated by dmd
is picking up the globally-installed version of the phobos
library instead of my local one. I'm using a dmd.conf pointing
at my local phobos build so this shouldn't be happening. From
output of dmd rdmd.d -v:
gcc rdmd.o -o
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 05:02:20 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 05/15/2012 04:28 AM, John Belmonte wrote:
C API's often use a opaque struct pointer as a handle. Mapping
such a
struct to D using a forward declaration, I noticed that UFCS
doesn't work:
struct State;
...
State* s = new_state
C API's often use a opaque struct pointer as a handle. Mapping
such a struct to D using a forward declaration, I noticed that
UFCS doesn't work:
struct State;
...
State* s = new_state();
foo(s); // ok
s.foo(); // compile error
Error detail:
Error: struct State is forward
25 matches
Mail list logo
