Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 16:56:27 UTC, Jacob wrote: I've noticed that you seem to be quite arrogant. Usually it is a result of ignorance. Your statement basically proves that. Maybe you should take a break from

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:40:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:34 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Wouldn't it be great if everyone took notes of the currently perceived shortcomings of shared so that there is a pile of use- and corner-cases to look at for a

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 16:56:27 UTC, Jacob wrote: I've noticed that you seem to be quite arrogant. Usually it is a result of ignorance. Your statement

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 08:10:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote: Ok, I'll write a DIP. That would be great to see. N.B. it's not only about Walter and Andrei: with a detailed, written-up proposal in place, the rest of us can examine it and, assuming we like it, lend our vocal support to the

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 12 October 2015 at 16:02, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > DIP69 is obviously known to me because my name is on it. What is the problem with DIP69? It looks like a great direction to me. It's almost exactly what I've been begging for for years! As

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:34 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Wouldn't it be great if everyone took notes of the currently perceived shortcomings of shared so that there is a pile of use- and corner-cases to look at for a redesign? The problem with shared is that shared should not be constant

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 13:02:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: That said, if you have: 1. writer-ownership as a feature 2. mark variables as "only writable by one owner" Then the compiler can drop some read locks for the _owning_ thread. But D does not have ownership as a feature

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 17:59:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote: Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right? ICH BIN EIN POLYNOMIAL! As this thread has run it course starting with the Hitler comparison, and is therefor OT. You have to explain to me, why your are a polynomial

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:23:05 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Ok, so here we arrived in d.religion. Today: "Agnostic vs. atheist, who is right." And: "Testimony: I tried to change the world but God didn't give me the source code." Well, I talk about D-ifying code sometimes, but saying that

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:24:13 UTC, deadalnix wrote: That's a reference to The Oatmeal : http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism thanks

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 16:04:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: _loosely_ translated: isolated: void* transition: const T* reference: T* value: immutable T* box: globally as shared const T*, locally as shared T* tag: shared T* The above turned out rather allegorical (and possibly

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 16:56:27 UTC, Jacob wrote: I've noticed that you seem to be quite arrogant. Usually it is a result of ignorance. Your statement

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: [...] Passion or not, "If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are pulling me the old prove a negative trick. You have good evidence that

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:18:46 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 17:59:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote: Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right? ICH BIN EIN POLYNOMIAL! As this thread has run it course starting with the Hitler comparison,

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

Am Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:59:26 + schrieb deadalnix : > > It he not really just saying "I have no clue if X is true, but > > since I don't know, I'll just assume it's false and assume you > > are wrong.". > > > > That's not very logical. Why wouldn't he just as well assume

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:17:43 UTC, Jacob wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:13:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: [...] Passion or not, "If you are

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:46:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Godwin's Law[1] has been invoked, boys and girls. The game is now over. Thanks for playing. You may go home now. Have a nice day. Neh, Godwin's law only states that as time progresses the probability of invoking "Hitler" as an

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:13:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: [...] Passion or not, "If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:37:27PM +, I SCREAM for ICECream via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:17:43 UTC, Jacob wrote: > >On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:13:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote: > >>On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote: > >>>On

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:46:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:37:27PM +, I SCREAM for ICECream via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:17:43 UTC, Jacob wrote: >[...] I don't know. Whenever someone runs out of arguments and is forced to go on

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:17:43 UTC, Jacob wrote: It's only cliche if you aren't interested in the truth. It doesn't matter if I used Hilter or any other person that was "passionate" but wrong. You are right, but Andrei and Walter often go into "passionate but wrong" mode too... It's

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:20:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:10:30 UTC, Ice Cream Madness wrote: The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem. Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is. We talk

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:20:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is. And as a result advanced c++ analyzers work on lowlevel IR, not at the language level. That has many consequences, one is time

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:21:24 UTC, Ice Cream Desserter wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:20:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:10:30 UTC, Ice Cream Madness wrote: The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem. Maybe, but at this point, I

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:00:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:46:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Godwin's Law[1] has been invoked, boys and girls. The game is now over. Thanks for playing. You may go home now. Have a nice day. Neh, Godwin's law only

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:20:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:10:30 UTC, Ice Cream Madness wrote: The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem. Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is. We talk

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:10:30 UTC, Ice Cream Madness wrote: The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem. Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is. We talk about adding features or tweaking existing features to fix problems,

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/12/15 7:19 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 03:59:04 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Am Sun, 11 Oct 2015 07:32:26 + schrieb deadalnix : In C++, you need to assume things are shared, and, as such, use thread safe inc/dec . That means compiler

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/12/15 1:44 AM, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 20:35:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Could you please point to the document you have already written? For instance, we had a discussion with Walter and Mark that eventually yielded DIP25. In there, I made the following

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/12/15 10:21 AM, deadalnix wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 06:02:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: There are not considered because DIP25 is "simpler" and you and Walter "like it". As long as nothing changes here, there is really no point in wasting my time. That is a fair

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 06:02:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: There are not considered because DIP25 is "simpler" and you and Walter "like it". As long as nothing changes here, there is really no point in wasting my time. That is a fair assessment. Basically I believe DIP25 is good

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 07:44:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Instead of assuming my purpose here is to pull tricks on you and manipulate the dialog politically, it's more productive to just stick to the technical discussion. I only started the dialog to get more informed about

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/12/15 2:39 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: On 10/11/2015 10:35 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: ... 1. You say that DIP25 is a failure. More so, you demand that is admitted without evidence. FWIW, DIP25 is insufficiently formal and/or incorrect. That I agree with. We need to get a lot better at

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

Am Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:44:47 +0300 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu : > >> Probably git grep in phobos may be a good starting point. > >> > > > > I don't think grepping for return will have a good noise to signal > > ratio. > > Sorry, I meant to git grep for "return

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 20:35:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 10/11/15 9:57 PM, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 18:52:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 13:51:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter and I are happy with DIP25, and the fact of

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/12/15 4:38 PM, Marc Schütz wrote: The problem is the signals we get from you and Walter. From various posts (or lack of response to certain questions) and the way you've treated this entire topic so far, I got the impression that you both are opposed to anything similar to Rust's approach.

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 07:21:58 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 06:02:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: There are not considered because DIP25 is "simpler" and you and Walter "like it". As long as nothing changes here, there is really no point in wasting my time.

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 16:56:27 UTC, Jacob wrote: I've noticed that you seem to be quite arrogant. Usually it is a result of ignorance. Your statement basically proves that. Maybe you should take a break from programming for a while and work on your attitude? While you have no proof

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

Am Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:28:55 +0300 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu : > On 10/12/15 7:19 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 03:59:04 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: > >> Am Sun, 11 Oct 2015 07:32:26 + > >> schrieb deadalnix : >

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/12/2015 06:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Experience with Rust is still young, but there seems to have already been a backlash; programmers try it and it's just too arcane to use in constant preoccupation about them ownership rules. ... Copying linear types and going whole-hog

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/13/15 3:09 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: On 10/12/2015 06:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Experience with Rust is still young, but there seems to have already been a backlash; programmers try it and it's just too arcane to use in constant preoccupation about them ownership rules. ... Copying

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 15:52, Freddy via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote: >> >> [...] > > > Speaking of DIP74 can't we just wrap a class in a struct with use reference > counting with and use alias this? Because the

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 16:06, Freddy via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:52:45 UTC, Freddy wrote: >> >> Speaking of DIP74 can't we just wrap a class in a struct with use >> reference counting with and use alias this? > > > Also how will DIP74

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:55:50 UTC, Manu wrote: On 11 October 2015 at 14:35, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:16:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote: If we go these DIP road, there is no coming back and this will get in the

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 07:08:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 10/11/15 7:25 AM, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 02:01:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: AFAIK, Walter and Andrei are still in favor of something that's at least similar to DIP 74. Andrei made a comment in

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 15:57, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:52:45 UTC, Freddy wrote: >> >> On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote: >>> >>> [...] >> >> >> Speaking of DIP74 can't we just wrap a class in a struct

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:48:54 UTC, Manu wrote: I don't really see that DIP25 and DIP74 are particularly closely related. Ho they are. It is all about ownership. DIP25 is a lame cop-out with respect to scope. I was a major backer of a proper scope implementation, and given that, I

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 14:25, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 02:01:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> >> AFAIK, Walter and Andrei are still in favor of something that's at least >> similar to DIP 74. Andrei made a comment in a thread

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 16:17, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:10:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> >> On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:52:45 UTC, Freddy wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote:

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 07:01:35 UTC, Manu wrote: On 11 October 2015 at 15:57, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:52:45 UTC, Freddy wrote: On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote: [...] Speaking of

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 17:10, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 10/11/15 9:48 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> C++ basically implemented rval-references to >> improve (not solve) the RC problem... > > > Interesting, haven't heard of this

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 14:16, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 01:48:05 UTC, Manu wrote: >> >> I'm rather in favour of DIP74... what's unprincipled about it? What would >> you do instead? >> > > Well, DIP25 and DIP74 are ad hoc adding

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 14:35, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:16:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >> >> If we go these DIP road, there is no coming back and this will get in the >> way of a principled approach. > > > Then come up

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/11/15 7:25 AM, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 02:01:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: AFAIK, Walter and Andrei are still in favor of something that's at least similar to DIP 74. Andrei made a comment in a thread just the other day that indicated that he was in favor of

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/11/15 9:48 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: C++ basically implemented rval-references to improve (not solve) the RC problem... Interesting, haven't heard of this viewpoint. Could you please give detail on that? -- Andrei

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 17:30, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:48:54 UTC, Manu wrote: >> >> I don't really see that DIP25 and DIP74 are particularly closely related. > > > Ho they are. It is all about ownership. > >> DIP25 is a lame

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 11 October 2015 at 17:16, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:55:50 UTC, Manu wrote: >> >> On 11 October 2015 at 14:35, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, 11 October

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:52:45 UTC, Freddy wrote: On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote: [...] Speaking of DIP74 can't we just wrap a class in a struct with use reference counting with and use alias this? alias is problematic, because it allows the class

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:52:45 UTC, Freddy wrote: Speaking of DIP74 can't we just wrap a class in a struct with use reference counting with and use alias this? Also how will DIP74 work with incremental compilation? --- extern (D) class RcClass; void func(RcClass a) { //opps

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:52:45 UTC, Freddy wrote: On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote: [...] Speaking of DIP74 can't we just wrap a class in a struct with use reference counting with and use alias this? You can. It is not safe, but it will do. Using type

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:10:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:52:45 UTC, Freddy wrote: On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote: [...] Speaking of DIP74 can't we just wrap a class in a struct with use reference counting with and use

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/11/15 10:53 AM, deadalnix wrote: I'm saying that DIP 25 was implemented and showed that it was too limited. The various experiment with it showed that is wasn't enough (ref counted objects) or required to jump though a lot of hoops for somewhat disappointing result (ref counted arrays).

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/11/15 10:16 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:55:50 UTC, Manu wrote: On 11 October 2015 at 14:35, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:16:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote: If we go these DIP road,

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:10:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: alias is problematic, because it allows the class reference to escape. opDispatch doesn't have that problem, though there may be other complications that it introduces (I don't know). It does get kind of complicated though

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 18:52:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 13:51:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter and I are happy with DIP25, and the fact of the matter is we weren't surprised more complementary work is needed. So no, I won't acknowledge what I don't

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 13:51:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter and I are happy with DIP25, and the fact of the matter is we weren't surprised more complementary work is needed. So no, I won't acknowledge what I don't believe. That is an empty statement. What is there to be

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 22:07:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote: That's not true. I explained in this thread why it is too limited, most notably : 1/ It was barely able to provide a non GC managed array type. More details here: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mcg8qq$1mbr$1...@digitalmars.com

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 22:12:50 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 21:15:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: In this case in C++, because the ref-counting is not built-in to the type, there is no way for the Child to have access to its parent via a shared_ptr. It

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 20:35:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Could you please point to the document you have already written? For instance, we had a discussion with Walter and Mark that eventually yielded DIP25. In there, I made the following proposal :

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 20:56:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: To be fair, you haven't really said much better. You're claiming that it's clear that it's a failure, whereas Andrei is saying that he doesn't see a problem with it. No concrete arguments are being given. The closest is that

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 22:33:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: I don't want get into arguments about smart_ptr and unique_ptr. It's completely irrelevant to my point. Ok, but keep in mind that since unique_ptr is rc which max out at 1 and therefore don't need extra support beyond having

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 12 Oct 2015 7:31 am, "Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 07:55:08 UTC, Manu wrote: >> >> Sure. If you don't care, I'm sure it's fine. But I don't feel it's reasonable to say C++ has ref counting. You might as well say "C++

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/11/15 9:57 PM, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 18:52:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 13:51:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter and I are happy with DIP25, and the fact of the matter is we weren't surprised more complementary work is needed. So

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 18:52:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote: The only rebuttal to all of this is "Walter and I are happy with DIP25, and the fact of the matter", while everybody else is wondering what there is to be happy about. To be fair, you haven't really said much better. You're claiming

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 14:27:36 UTC, Freddy wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 06:10:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: alias is problematic, because it allows the class reference to escape. opDispatch doesn't have that problem, though there may be other complications that it introduces

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 07:55:08 UTC, Manu wrote: Sure. If you don't care, I'm sure it's fine. But I don't feel it's reasonable to say C++ has ref counting. You might as well say "C++ has garbage collection" (which is probably actually more true than this) ;) ... Objective-C supports ref

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Nothing here explains to me how it is that the compiler can do without > RC primitives that the compiler knows it is allowed to > optimise/schedule as it likes? > How does it look in rust that it is able to optimise calls to inc/dec >

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 20:56:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 18:52:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote: The only rebuttal to all of this is "Walter and I are happy with DIP25, and the fact of the matter", while everybody else is wondering what there is to be happy

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 21:15:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: In this case in C++, because the ref-counting is not built-in to the type, there is no way for the Child to have access to its parent via a shared_ptr. It has to be done via a normal pointer. D has exactly this same problem.

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On 10/11/2015 10:35 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: ... 1. You say that DIP25 is a failure. More so, you demand that is admitted without evidence. FWIW, DIP25 is insufficiently formal and/or incorrect. I have been able to find those holes in the implementation pretty quickly (I'll also put

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 23:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote: Incidentally, I tried to use shared_ptr initially, but it took about 20 minutes before I realised I had to pass an rc pointer from a method... Since rc is a wrapper, like you said above, you lose it as soon as you're within a method.

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 23:07:18 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 22:33:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Well, the wrapper approach is no good (is it part of dip74?) since it messes up alignment etc, so the refcount interface should be part of the parent object.

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 23:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote: Incidentally, I tried to use shared_ptr initially, but it took about 20 minutes before I realised I had to pass an rc pointer from a method... Since rc is a wrapper, like you said above, you lose it as soon as you're within a method. I

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

of coders to see the advantage. There is however one critical missing feature, DIP74... where is it at currently? How is it going? Is it likely to be accepted in the near-term? Some sort of approximate timeline? I think it would be a mistake for me to introduce this without DIP74, since we

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 23:46:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: @safe isn't going anywhere. And it mostly works just fine. It's primary flaw is that it's been done via blacklisting operations rather than whitelisting them, but that doesn't stop it from working. It just makes the

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 03:59:04 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Am Sun, 11 Oct 2015 07:32:26 + schrieb deadalnix : In C++, you need to assume things are shared, and, as such, use thread safe inc/dec . That means compiler won't be able to optimize them. D can do better

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

Am Sun, 11 Oct 2015 07:32:26 + schrieb deadalnix : > In C++, you need to assume things are shared, and, as such, use > thread safe inc/dec . That means compiler won't be able to > optimize them. D can do better as sharedness is part of the type > system. With the

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 23:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote: Incidentally, I tried to use shared_ptr initially, but it took about 20 minutes before I realised I had to pass an rc pointer from a method... Since rc is a wrapper, like you said above, you lose it as soon as you're within a method. I

DIP74 - where is at?

feature, DIP74... where is it at currently? How is it going? Is it likely to be accepted in the near-term? Some sort of approximate timeline? I think it would be a mistake for me to introduce this without DIP74, since we will rely on it VERY heavily, and the machinery to work-around it will start

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

o interact >> better with C++, which we will stress-test extensively. >> >> You only get so many shots at this; but this is a particularly promising >> opportunity, since the C++ code is a nightmare, and the contrast against D >> will allow a lot of coders to see the advantage

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:35:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:16:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote: If we go these DIP road, there is no coming back and this will get in the way of a principled approach. Then come up with an alternative DIP which shows a better

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:16:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote: If we go these DIP road, there is no coming back and this will get in the way of a principled approach. Then come up with an alternative DIP which shows a better way to solve this. As it stands, it looks likely that we'll end up

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 00:20:08 UTC, deadalnix wrote: It doesn't looks like it is getting implemented. And, to be honest, I'd rather go a principle approach + library support rather than a pie of hacks. The pile of hacks approach is what made C++ C++. AFAIK, Walter and Andrei are

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 05:18:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Well, if they won't listen, they won't listen. And if they're wrong, we'll be worse off for it. Unfortunately, I wasn't involved in those discussions and haven't looked into DIP 25 much (I was too busy at the time of the major

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Manu wrote: [...] Speaking of DIP74 can't we just wrap a class in a struct with use reference counting with and use alias this?

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:16:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote: The problem at hand is fairly well know at this stage: it is ownership. Everything else can be done as library. This.

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 01:48:05 UTC, Manu wrote: I'm rather in favour of DIP74... what's unprincipled about it? What would you do instead? Well, DIP25 and DIP74 are ad hoc adding to the language to support specific use cases. I think the whole thing is wrong headed. Ideally when

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

of coders to see the advantage. There is however one critical missing feature, DIP74... where is it at currently? How is it going? Is it likely to be accepted in the near-term? Some sort of approximate timeline? I think it would be a mistake for me to introduce this without DIP74, since we

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 02:01:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: AFAIK, Walter and Andrei are still in favor of something that's at least similar to DIP 74. Andrei made a comment in a thread just the other day that indicated that he was in favor of having a way to build reference counting

Re: DIP74 - where is at?

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:56:25 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:35:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:16:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote: If we go these DIP road, there is no coming back and this will get in the way of a principled approach.

  1   2   >