== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> I see nothing wrong with the occasional forking conditioned by __ctfe.
> Even today, code may fork an optimized but nonportable implementation of
> some algorithm. The main requirement is that such forks are rare enough
>
== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article
> But that's not how the function is written. The left parameter is the
> destination. If myString.strcpy(myString2) is confusing, I would expect
> strcpy(myString, myString2) to be just as confusing. I don't see how using the
> member
I would say look for small things people do which are CPU intensive. One
example
is sorting -- it can be parallelized fairly well and yet sorting 10_000_000
elements still takes long enough to be worth parallelizing.
If you want examples of working parallel sort etc you can look in the 'Futurism
I think immutable could benefit from a Value Range Propagation-like uniqueness
logic:
string a;
char[] b;
string c = a ~ b; // result of ~ is always unique
string z = c.dup; // also any kind of .dup is definitely unique
char[] q = z.dup; // also okay -- assign to a non-immutable
The lines w/ dup
== Quote from Kevin Bealer (kevindangerbea...@removedanger.gmail.com)'s article
> == Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> ...
> > Currently you are able to write functions like:
> > pure bool randomPure() {
> > int[] a1 = new in
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
...
> Currently you are able to write functions like:
> pure bool randomPure() {
> int[] a1 = new int[1];
> int[] a2 = new int[2];
> return a1.ptr > a2.ptr;
> }
Is it possible to fix this by disallowing using the value of a
== Quote from Stewart Gordon (smjg_1...@yahoo.com)'s article
> On 23/02/2011 18:07, Ary Manzana wrote:
> > On 2/22/11 10:36 AM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> >> %u Wrote:
> >>> Well, the trouble is, pretty much all of these are invalid attributes:
> >>
> >>> - static obviously makes no sense
> >>
> >> An
== Quote from Sean Kelly (s...@invisibleduck.org)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > On 2/21/11 6:08 PM, bearophile wrote:
> >> Andrei Alexandrescu:
> >>
> >>> This is a long-standing myth. I worked on Wall Street and have friends
> >>> who have been doing it for years. Everybody uses doub
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Kevin Bealer wrote:
> A reasonable way to do financial work is to use longs to represent pennies.
> After all, you don't have fractional cents in your accounts.
> Using floating point to represent mone
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
...
> I do understand that if you have a full symbolic representation, you can do so
> with zero losses. But Kevin's proposal was not that, it was for a ratio
> representation.
>
> All it represents symbolically is division. There a
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Kevin Bealer wrote:
> > You could switch to this:
> >
> > struct {
> > BigInt numerator;
> > BigInt denominator;
> > };
> >
> > Bingo -- no compromise.
> It cann
== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article
...
> It may be that you would still end up with situations where two values that
> you
> would think would be the same aren't due to rounding error or whatnot.
> However,
> with a fixed point value, you wouldn't have the problem wher
== Quote from Daniel Gibson (metalcae...@gmail.com)'s article
> It was not proposed to alter ulong (int64), but to only a size_t equivalent.
> ;)
> And I agree that not having unsigned types (like in Java) just sucks.
> Wasn't Java even advertised as a programming language for network stuff? Quite
== Quote from spir (denis.s...@gmail.com)'s article
> On 02/16/2011 03:07 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 15:13:33 spir wrote:
> >> On 02/15/2011 11:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> Is there some low level reason why size_t should be signed or something
> >>> I'm c
Sorry this was a completely unintentional error --- I meant to say "in case
anyone
doubts Gary's post". Blame the lateness of the night and/or my annoyingly lossy
wireless keyboard.
Kevin
> our famous Reddit trolls, that is retard = uriel = eternium = lurker
In case anyone doubts gay's guess... for those who don't follow entertainment
trivia, Alan Smithee is a pseudonym used by directors disowning a film (google
it). So anyone using this name is actually effectively *claiming* to
I don't know if you can find all of them easily but you can find the
instantiated
ones by adding a line to the Foo constructor as shown here.
Two limits:
1. This doesn't report Bar itself since a Bar object is never created; however
in
a sense a 'Bar' object was created when Baz and Qux are cre
bearophile Wrote:
> Walter Bright:
> > 3. The glaring fact that std::vector and std::string are different
> > suggests something is still wrong.
>
> In an array/vector you want O(1) access time to all items (ignoring RAM-cache
> access/transfer delays), while in a string with variable-width Uni
BCS Wrote:
> Hello Walter,
>
> > BCS wrote:
> >
> >> I guess my point is that aside from VERY resource limited systems,
> >> almost no one will have C as their first choice. Even with those
> >> limited systems I'd bet that most people would rather be working in
> >> something else if they could
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> The grand STL tradition is to _always_ take iterators by value. If
> iterators are computed, they are returned by the algorithm.
>
> My initial approach to defining std.algorithm was to continue that
> tradition for ranges: ranges are values. No algorithm currently
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> I think we are now in the position of defining a solid set of
> concurrency primitives for D. This follows many months of mulling over
> models and options.
>
> It would be great to open the participation to the design as broadly as
> possible, but I think it's rea
Rainer Deyke Wrote:
> Kevin Bealer wrote:
> > I think a lot of people would do even better than insertion with a
> > deck of poker cards -- they might group cards by either suit or rank
> > (or rank groups) (e.g. "Hmm, I'll make three piles of 1-5, 6-10, and
>
dsimcha Wrote:
> == Quote from Kevin Bealer (kevinbea...@gmail.com)'s article
> > (Non-software) people doing routine tasks often come up with better
> > algorithms
> intuitively than my intuition expects them to.
> > I think a lot of people would do even better
Don Wrote:
> retard wrote:
...
>
> I'd say it's easier. If you watch someone sorting some cards, they'll
> use either insertion sort or selection sort. Nobody should have ever
> heard of bubble sort, I'm pleased to hear some schools aren't mentioning
> it. Such a foolish algorithm.
>
> "the bu
Walter Bright Wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> >> qsort (x:xs) = qsort (filter (< x) xs) ++ [x] ++ qsort (filter (>= x) xs)
> >> prominently featured in Haskell's official introduction page:
> >> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Int
yigal chripun Wrote:
> of the three above I think option 3 is the worst design and option 2 is my
> favorite design. I think that in reality you'll almost always want to define
> such an interface and I really can't think of any useful use cases for an
> unrestricted template parameter as in C+
dsimcha Wrote:
> == Quote from Yigal Chripun (yigal...@gmail.com)'s article
> > but even more frustrating is the fact that
> > template compilation bugs will also happen at the client.
> > There's a whole range of designs for this and related issues and IMO the
> > C++ design is by far the worst o
Walter Bright Wrote:
> Kevin Bealer wrote:
> > To smooth this out, it would help to have the best practices for
> > doing common things in D (e.g. serialization, logging) somewhat
> > documented for the consumption of non-experts. I wonder what a good
> > way of doin
retard Wrote:
> Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:42:26 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
> Most likely Walter won't even tell what kind of arrays D2 will have.
> Anything can happen. The final word is the undocumented executable you
> can download when the book hits stores. Even then dmd's behavior isn't
I think I have a solution to some problems that occur in OO design. The
problems occurs when a method can be implemented that provides a great
functionality for a specific class, but which it is not valid for its
subclasses without extra work. The classic examples in C++ would be serialize.
v
30 matches
Mail list logo
