On 01/04/2018 11:59 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I wouldn't say that CTFE means that it is forced/guaranteed. But you're
right that it could be confusing the way I described it. I added a
section to clarify that usually the compiler would not use CTFE to
constant-fold complex expressions, unless the
On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:57:25PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thursday, January 04, 2018 14:59:44 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> > Are you sure that's non-CTFE? Isn't standard constant folding a
> > part of CTFE? Anyway, the new section should clear up
On Thursday, January 04, 2018 14:59:44 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:44:21PM +0100, ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > On 01/03/2018 02:51 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > > https://wiki.dlang.org/User:Quickfur/Compile-time_vs._compile-time#Bu
> > >
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:44:21PM +0100, ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 01/03/2018 02:51 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >
> > https://wiki.dlang.org/User:Quickfur/Compile-time_vs._compile-time#But_what_of_runtime_performance.3F
> >
> > object.destroy! :-P
>
> In the CTFE section, you
On 01/03/2018 02:51 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
https://wiki.dlang.org/User:Quickfur/Compile-time_vs._compile-time#But_what_of_runtime_performance.3F
object.destroy! :-P
In the CTFE section, you explain that it came from constant folding, but
you don't point out how the two are different.
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 07:26:54PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 02, 2018 17:51:01 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > object.destroy! :-P
>
> But that doesn't work during compile-time, does it? ;)
[...]
Which compile-time? :-D
T
--
Computers
On Tuesday, January 02, 2018 17:51:01 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> object.destroy! :-P
But that doesn't work during compile-time, does it? ;)
- Jonathan M Davis
Finally got around to working on my draft article "Compile-time vs.
compile-time" again today. Mainly added another case study for a
commonly encountered issue, and cleaned up the outdated stuff on
"static" foreach (not the *real* static foreach that we have now). Now
