On 16 March 2012 02:26, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/15/12 5:44 PM, foobar wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2012 at 18:23:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I understand how the draw of reaching for new syntax is extremely
alluring. I used to fall for it much
On 15 March 2012 17:51, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 March 2012 19:05, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
On 3/15/12 11:30 AM, Manu wrote:
On 15 March 2012 17:32, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
On 03/16/12 01:03, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:11:44AM +0100, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:44:09 +0100, foobar f...@bar.com wrote:
Is swap usually inlined by the compiler?
This is the body of swap for simple types:
auto tmp = lhs;
lhs = rhs;
rhs =
On 16 March 2012 04:26, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
A good design should strive to provide general features instead of
special cases (E.g. swap is limited to the 2-tuple case). Also, why
force an overhead of a function call on such a basic feature as
assignment?
On 3/16/12 6:29 AM, Manu wrote:
On 16 March 2012 04:26, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
A good design should strive to provide general features instead of
special cases (E.g. swap is limited to the 2-tuple case).
On 16 March 2012 16:37, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/16/12 6:29 AM, Manu wrote:
On 16 March 2012 04:26, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
A good design should strive to provide general
On 3/16/12 3:48 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
This could also be done for arrays too.
(int a, b) = arr[];
-
static assert(arr.length == 2);
int a = arr[0];
int b = arr[1];
Yah, the rewrite is purely syntactic, not tuple-specific. That's a major
thing I like about it.
Or possibly a use in
On 3/16/12 11:50 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
If you were to forget all about MRV for a brief moment, the change
request being proposed here is to return *all* structures (including
delegates, complex types and vectors) in registers if at all possible
even if the underlying ABI default is to return it
On 16 March 2012 16:53, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/16/12 11:50 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
If you were to forget all about MRV for a brief moment, the change
request being proposed here is to return *all* structures (including
delegates, complex types and
On 16 March 2012 18:37, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
Actually, as has been mentioned, swizzling can be done very nicely inside
the language.
How? The only example I saw in this thread was your from()/to() approach,
which Timon said didn't actually work...?
On
On 16 March 2012 18:53, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
On 3/16/12 11:50 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
If you were to forget all about MRV for a brief moment, the change
request being proposed here is to return *all* structures (including
delegates, complex types and
On 16 March 2012 19:13, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 16 March 2012 16:53, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/16/12 11:50 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
If you were to forget all about MRV for a brief moment, the change
request being proposed here is to
On 03/16/2012 06:33 PM, Manu wrote:
On 16 March 2012 18:37, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
Actually, as has been mentioned, swizzling can be done very nicely
inside the language.
How?
Use opDispatch.
a = a.yxwz;
The
On 16 March 2012 19:53, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/16/2012 06:33 PM, Manu wrote:
On 16 March 2012 18:37, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail@**erdani.orgseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
Actually, as has been mentioned,
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:26:55 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I think this is a reasonable request:
(auto a, b) = fun();
---
static assert(fun().length == 2);
auto __t = fun();
auto a = __t[0];
auto b = __t[1];
That would be nice. As was mentioned in a
Simen K.:
Now, a pattern that our productive friend bearophile posted earlier was
this:
int[] foo();
(auto a, b) = foo();
---
auto __t = foo();
assert( __t.length 0 );
auto a = __t[0];
auto b = __t[1..$];
Is this something we might also want?
That's not a good idea,
On 14 March 2012 22:06, Derek Parnell ddparn...@bigpond.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:52:26 +1100, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/14/12 3:00 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
template to(T...) {
alias T to;
}
auto from(T...)(T t) {
struct Result { T t; alias t
On 03/14/2012 11:06 PM, Derek Parnell wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:52:26 +1100, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/14/12 3:00 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
template to(T...) {
alias T to;
}
auto from(T...)(T t) {
struct Result { T t; alias t this; }
return Result( t );
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:23:57 +1100, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
I'd like to break the nexus between science and magic here.
// this is used to access language built-in tuples
template to(T...) {
alias T to;
}
// this builds a struct akin to std.typecons.tuple
// it contains the
On 15 March 2012 09:52, Derek ddparn...@bigpond.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:23:57 +1100, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
I'd like to break the nexus between science and magic here.
// this is used to access language built-in tuples
template to(T...) {
alias T to;
}
// this
On 3/15/12 5:14 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 15 March 2012 09:52, Derekddparn...@bigpond.com wrote:
Are you saying that the generated code is something like ...
struct __tmpS { int Fa, int Fb };
__tempS __tmp;
__tmp.Fa = a;
__tmp.Fb = b;
a = __tmp.Fb;
b = __tmp.Fa;
In
On 15 March 2012 17:32, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
On 3/15/12 5:14 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 15 March 2012 09:52, Derekddparn...@bigpond.com wrote:
Are you saying that the generated code is something like ...
struct __tmpS { int Fa, int Fb };
__tempS
On 3/15/12 11:30 AM, Manu wrote:
On 15 March 2012 17:32, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
One note - the code is really ingenious, but I still prefer swap()
in this case. It's more concise and does less work in the general
On 03/15/2012 04:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
One note - the code is really ingenious, but I still prefer swap() in
this case. It's more concise and does less work in the general case.
swap(a[i + k], a[j + j]);
only computes the indexing once (in source, too).
In the general case,
On 15 March 2012 19:05, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
On 3/15/12 11:30 AM, Manu wrote:
On 15 March 2012 17:32, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail@**erdani.orgseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
One note - the code
On 3/15/12 12:51 PM, Manu wrote:
On 15 March 2012 19:05, Andrei Alexandrescu
It's a function call. Why is a function call a ugly hack?
Because now we're involving libraries to perform a trivial assignment.
It's not a trivial assignment, it's swapping two pieces of data. This
matter has
On Thursday, 15 March 2012 at 17:05:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 3/15/12 11:30 AM, Manu wrote:
On 15 March 2012 17:32, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
One note - the code is really ingenious, but I still prefer
swap()
On Thursday, 15 March 2012 at 18:23:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I understand how the draw of reaching for new syntax is
extremely alluring. I used to fall for it much more often, but
over years I have hardened myself to resist it, and I think
that made me a better language designer.
Andrei Alexandrescu:
generally the question is not why couldn't we add syntax X? but
instead why should we add syntax X?
You are right. Tuples are a basic data structure, some other language
constructs are built on them (swapping items is just one of their purposes,
then there is multiple
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:44:09 +0100, foobar f...@bar.com wrote:
Is swap usually inlined by the compiler?
This is the body of swap for simple types:
auto tmp = lhs;
lhs = rhs;
rhs = tmp;
For more complex types:
ubyte[T.sizeof] t = void;
auto a = (cast(ubyte*) lhs)[0 .. T.sizeof];
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:11:44AM +0100, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:44:09 +0100, foobar f...@bar.com wrote:
Is swap usually inlined by the compiler?
This is the body of swap for simple types:
auto tmp = lhs;
lhs = rhs;
rhs = tmp;
For more complex types:
On 3/15/12 5:44 PM, foobar wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2012 at 18:23:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I understand how the draw of reaching for new syntax is extremely
alluring. I used to fall for it much more often, but over years I have
hardened myself to resist it, and I think that made
2. When was the last time you needed to swap arbitrary numbers of elements,
and so badly and frequently, you needed a new language feature for that?
Andrei
I would like to point out Boscop's vector swizzling tutorial that he
made recently as evidence that not only do you not need it that
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:46:52PM +1300, James Miller wrote:
2. When was the last time you needed to swap arbitrary numbers of
elements, and so badly and frequently, you needed a new language
feature for that?
Andrei
I would like to point out Boscop's vector swizzling tutorial that
I'm encouraged to see that every person in this thread so far seems to feel
the same way as me regarding the syntax.
On 14 March 2012 05:25, Derek Parnell ddparn...@bigpond.com wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:33:18 +1100, Kevin Cox kevincox...@gmail.com
wrote:
(int i,,float f) =
On Wednesday, 14 March 2012 at 02:33:29 UTC, Kevin Cox wrote:
Kind of unrelated but I think that it is important to have a
way to ignore
values also. Leaving them bank would sufice.
(int i,,float f) = intBoringFloat();
or
(int i, null, float f) = intBoringFloat();
or
(int i, void, float
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:52:55 -0500, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm encouraged to see that every person in this thread so far seems to feel
the same way as me regarding the syntax.
On 14 March 2012 05:25, Derek Parnell ddparn...@bigpond.com wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:33:18 +1100,
On 3/13/12 6:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/13/12 2:57 PM, Manu wrote:
And you think that's more readable and intuitive than: (v1, v2, v3) =
fun(); ?
Yes (e.g. when I see the commas my mind starts running in all directions
because that's valid code nowadays that ignores v1 and v2 and
On 3/14/12 2:02 PM, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 3/13/12 6:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/13/12 2:57 PM, Manu wrote:
And you think that's more readable and intuitive than: (v1, v2, v3) =
fun(); ?
Yes (e.g. when I see the commas my mind starts running in all directions
because that's valid
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:02:50 +0100, Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar
wrote:
Here's what you can do in Ruby:
a = 1
b = 2
# Swap the contents
a, b = b, a
Can you do something like that with templates in D, with a nice syntax?
template to(T...) {
alias T to;
}
auto from(T...)(T t) {
On 3/14/12 5:00 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:02:50 +0100, Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar
wrote:
Here's what you can do in Ruby:
a = 1
b = 2
# Swap the contents
a, b = b, a
Can you do something like that with templates in D, with a nice syntax?
template to(T...) {
On 14 March 2012 22:10, Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote:
On 3/14/12 5:00 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:02:50 +0100, Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar
wrote:
Here's what you can do in Ruby:
a = 1
b = 2
# Swap the contents
a, b = b, a
Can you do something
On 14 March 2012 15:17, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
But there's a reason we use /// instead of ⫻; we shouldn't require custom
keyboard mappings in order to program efficiently in D.
Hold that thought, I think you're missing a major franchising opportunity
right there...
D branded
On 3/14/12 3:00 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
template to(T...) {
alias T to;
}
auto from(T...)(T t) {
struct Result { T t; alias t this; }
return Result( t );
}
void main( ) {
int a = 3;
int b = 4;
to!(a, b) = from(b, a);
assert( a == 4 );
assert( b == 3 );
}
I got reborn inside a little when
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:52:26 +1100, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/14/12 3:00 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
template to(T...) {
alias T to;
}
auto from(T...)(T t) {
struct Result { T t; alias t this; }
return Result( t );
}
void main( ) {
int a = 3;
int b = 4;
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:52:26 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/14/12 3:00 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
template to(T...) {
alias T to;
}
auto from(T...)(T t) {
struct Result { T t; alias t this; }
return Result( t );
}
void main( ) {
int a = 3;
int b = 4;
On Wednesday, 14 March 2012 at 13:17:47 UTC, Robert Jacques wrote:
snip
But there's a reason we use /// instead of ⫻; we shouldn't
require custom keyboard mappings in order to program
efficiently in D.
Aren't we supposed to be moving towards more natural interfaces
in computing? I'm sure
On 13 March 2012 06:45, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
You see, at this point I have no idea what to believe anymore. You argued
very strongly from the position of one whose life depends on efficiency.
Here and there you'd mix some remark about syntax, and I'd like
On 13 March 2012 09:12, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 March 2012 06:45, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
You see, at this point I have no idea what to believe anymore. You argued
very strongly from the position of one whose life depends on efficiency.
Here and
On 13 March 2012 13:27, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
What about alternative optimisations for MRV, rather than stating that
it should always be returned in registers where possible (and breaking
ABI on all target platforms). What about, for example, using named
return value
On 3/13/12 4:12 AM, Manu wrote:
I think I feel a sense of urgency towards the ABI aspect because it is a
breaking change, and I suspect the longer anything like that is left,
the less likely/more risky it becomes.
If it gets delayed for 6-12 months, are you honestly more or less likely
to say
On 13 March 2012 16:44, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
I thought more about it and we should be fine with two functions
(untested):
enum Skip {};
@property ref Skip skip() {
static __gshared Skip result;
return result;
}
void scatter(T, U...)(auto ref T
On 3/13/12 10:48 AM, Manu wrote:
float t;
...
(myStruct.pos, t, _, int err) = intersectThings();
I actually find the scatter syntax better than this. Anyway, I hope
you'll agree there's not much difference pragmatically.
Andrei
On 13 March 2012 18:07, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
On 3/13/12 10:48 AM, Manu wrote:
float t;
...
(myStruct.pos, t, _, int err) = intersectThings();
I actually find the scatter syntax better than this. Anyway, I hope you'll
agree there's not much difference
On 3/13/12 12:02 PM, Manu wrote:
There's a few finicky differences. I'm still of the understanding (and I
may be wrong, still mystified by some of D's more complicated template
syntax) that once you give the returned tuple a name, it is structurally
bound to the stack. At that point, passing any
On 13 March 2012 19:25, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
On 3/13/12 12:02 PM, Manu wrote:
There's a few finicky differences. I'm still of the understanding (and I
may be wrong, still mystified by some of D's more complicated template
syntax) that once you give the
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/13/12 10:48 AM, Manu wrote:
float t;
...
(myStruct.pos, t, _, int err) = intersectThings();
This can be checked at compile time. The D compiler can check that the
number of arguments and the types
On 3/13/12 2:07 PM, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/13/12 10:48 AM, Manu wrote:
float t;
...
(myStruct.pos, t, _, int err) = intersectThings();
This can be checked at compile time. The D compiler
On 3/13/12 1:20 PM, Manu wrote:
What value does it add over Kenji's change? Is this because Kenji's
change is unable to perform direct to existing variables?
Yes.
My understanding from early in the thread was that Kenji's change hides
the returned tuple, and performs a convenient unpack. How
On 13 March 2012 21:40, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
On 3/13/12 1:20 PM, Manu wrote:
What value does it add over Kenji's change? Is this because Kenji's
change is unable to perform direct to existing variables?
Yes.
My understanding from early in the thread
On 3/13/12 2:57 PM, Manu wrote:
And you think that's more readable and intuitive than: (v1, v2, v3) =
fun(); ?
Yes (e.g. when I see the commas my mind starts running in all directions
because that's valid code nowadays that ignores v1 and v2 and keeps v3
as an lvalue).
Let me put it
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Let me put it another way: I don't see one syntax over another a deal
maker or deal breaker. At all.
I am usually able to follow threads, but this time I am a bit lost (this
discussion has mixed very different topics like ABIs, implementation efficiency
of tuples and
Maybe
[x, y] = func();
?
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 22:26:14 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Let me put it another way: I don't see one syntax over another
a deal maker or deal breaker. At all.
I am usually able to follow threads, but this time I am a bit
lost (this discussion has mixed very different
Shall we discuss the shortcomings of his implementation? Can someone
demonstrate the details of his implementation?
From the little examples up in the thread, it looked like you could
only declare new variables inline, but not assign out to existing ones.
I'd say this needs to be added too, and
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:33:18 +1100, Kevin Cox kevincox...@gmail.com
wrote:
Kind of unrelated but I think that it is important to have a way to
ignore
values also. Leaving them bank would sufice.
(int i,,float f) = intBoringFloat();
For what its worth, the Euphoria Programming Language
On 03/12/2012 05:01 AM, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:49:52 -0500, Mantis mail.mantis...@gmail.com
wrote:
12.03.2012 4:00, Robert Jacques пишет:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:15:31 -0500, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 03/11/2012 11:58 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
Manu was
On 12 March 2012 04:44, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
On 3/11/12 6:30 PM, Manu wrote:
D should
define an MRV ABI which is precisely the ABI for passing multiple args
TO a function, but in reverse, for any given architecture. This also has
the lovely side effect of
On 12 March 2012 04:00, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:15:31 -0500, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/11/2012 11:58 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
Manu was arguing that MRV were somehow special and had mystical
optimization potential. That's simply not
12.03.2012 6:01, Robert Jacques пишет:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:49:52 -0500, Mantis mail.mantis...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...]
That's the point of discussion. Fields of structure may not be optimized
away, because they are not independent variables. In D you have
unchecked pointer-to-pointer casts,
So, function with MRV is basically the function that returns
Tuple where one can specify return convention?
---
auto fun()
{
return(Windows) tuple(1, 2.0f);
}
(int x, float y) = fun();
---
On 12 March 2012 01:37, Andrew Wiley wiley.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 00:58, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
That's an argument for using the right register for the job. And we can /
will be doing this on
On 12 March 2012 00:44, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 00:58, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
That's an argument for using the right register for the job. And we can /
will be doing this on x86-64, as other compilers have already done. Manu was
arguing that MRV were
On 12 March 2012 19:03, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 00:44, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 00:58, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
That's an argument for using the right register for the job. And we can
/
will be doing this on x86-64, as
On 12 March 2012 17:22, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 19:03, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 00:44, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 00:58, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
That's an argument for using the right register for
On 12 March 2012 17:49, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 17:22, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 19:03, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 00:44, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 00:58, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu
On 12 March 2012 19:49, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
OK, -msse2 is not an ARM target option. :~)
Oh sorry, I thought you were asking about the x86 codegen ;)
I used -S -O2 -float-abi=hard
Looking around, the Procedure Call Standard for the ARM Architecture
specifically says
On 12 March 2012 17:59, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 19:49, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
OK, -msse2 is not an ARM target option. :~)
Oh sorry, I thought you were asking about the x86 codegen ;)
I used -S -O2 -float-abi=hard
Looking around, the Procedure Call
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 02:15:55 -0500, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/12/2012 05:01 AM, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:49:52 -0500, Mantis mail.mantis...@gmail.com
wrote:
12.03.2012 4:00, Robert Jacques пишет:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:15:31 -0500, Timon Gehr
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:46:45 -0500, Mantis mail.mantis...@gmail.com wrote:
12.03.2012 6:01, Robert Jacques пишет:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:49:52 -0500, Mantis mail.mantis...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...]
That's the point of discussion. Fields of structure may not be optimized
away, because they are not
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:25:54 -0500, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 04:00, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:15:31 -0500, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/11/2012 11:58 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
Manu was arguing that MRV were somehow
Is this basically like saying it'll never happen?
There is already a pending pull request implementing the syntax, that
addresses half of the feature straight up.. codegen can come later, I
agreed earlier that it is of lesser importance.
You don't see the immediate value in a convenient MRV
On 3/12/12 3:37 AM, Manu wrote:
On 12 March 2012 04:44, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
On 3/11/12 6:30 PM, Manu wrote:
D should
define an MRV ABI which is precisely the ABI for passing
multiple args
On 11 March 2012 03:45, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:27:05 -0600, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 March 2012 00:25, Sean Cavanaugh worksonmymach...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 3/10/2012 4:37 AM, Manu wrote:
If I pass a structure TO a function by value, I
On 11 March 2012 04:35, Sean Cavanaugh worksonmymach...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/2012 8:08 PM, Mantis wrote:
Tuple!(float, float) callee() {
do something to achieve result in st0,st1
fst st0, st1 into stack
load stack values into EAX, EDX
ret
}
void caller() {
call callee()
push EAX,
On 11 March 2012 05:04, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
On 3/10/12 4:37 AM, Manu wrote:
I still fundamentally see a clear divide between a Tuple, which is a
deliberately structured association of multiple values, and 'multiple
return values' which is an explicit
On 11 March 2012 05:04, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.orgwrote:
This analogy is tenuous for D because functions are defined to return one
type, e.g. typeof(fun(args)) is defined. Once we get into disallowing that
for certain functions, we're looking at major language changes
On 03/11/2012 01:30 PM, Manu wrote:
On 11 March 2012 05:04, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
This analogy is tenuous for D because functions are defined to
return one type, e.g. typeof(fun(args)) is defined. Once we get into
On 03/11/2012 12:50 PM, Manu wrote:
Nobody has acknowledged
or disputed the majority of my points :/
I agree with the majority of your points.
On Sunday, 11 March 2012 at 03:04:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
This analogy is tenuous for D because functions are defined to
return one type, e.g. typeof(fun(args)) is defined. Once we get
into disallowing that for certain functions, we're looking at
major language changes for little
On 11 March 2012 14:56, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/11/2012 12:50 PM, Manu wrote:
Nobody has acknowledged
or disputed the majority of my points :/
I agree with the majority of your points.
Cool, well that's encouraging :)
I can't really argue the implementation details, all
On 03/11/2012 02:23 PM, Manu wrote:
On 11 March 2012 14:56, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
mailto:timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/11/2012 12:50 PM, Manu wrote:
Nobody has acknowledged
or disputed the majority of my points :/
I agree with the majority of your points.
On 03/11/12 02:27, Manu wrote:
I've never seen the compiler do wildly unexpected things unless whole program
optimisation is enabled
The compiler can only ignore the ABI when it knows it sees the whole picture,
ie whole program, or whole unit in case of private/local functions.
which I don't
On 11 March 2012 15:35, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/11/2012 02:23 PM, Manu wrote:
On 11 March 2012 14:56, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
mailto:timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/11/2012 12:50 PM, Manu wrote:
Nobody has acknowledged
or disputed the majority of
On 11 March 2012 16:01, Artur Skawina art.08...@gmail.com wrote:
which I don't imagine D will be able to support any time real soon?
In fact, until GDC learns cross-module inlining, using these modes is the
only
way to make the compiler generate sane code
Yeah I'm very concerned by this
On 03/11/12 15:59, Manu wrote:
On 11 March 2012 16:01, Artur Skawina art.08...@gmail.com
mailto:art.08...@gmail.com wrote:
which I don't imagine D will be able to support any time real soon?
In fact, until GDC learns cross-module inlining, using these modes is the
only
way
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 05:57:05 -0500, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 March 2012 04:35, Sean Cavanaugh worksonmymach...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/2012 8:08 PM, Mantis wrote:
Tuple!(float, float) callee() {
do something to achieve result in st0,st1
fst st0, st1 into stack
load stack
On 11 March 2012 18:50, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 05:57:05 -0500, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 March 2012 04:35, Sean Cavanaugh worksonmymach...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 3/10/2012 8:08 PM, Mantis wrote:
Tuple!(float, float) callee() {
do something
On 11 March 2012 18:45, Artur Skawina art.08...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than that, there is devirtualization - D does not have 'virtual';
the compiler
can still do it and even inline the virtual methods, but it needs to know
that
nothing overrides the functions - impossible w/o WPO for public
On 3/11/12 7:52 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
It is extremely obvious how multiple return values should work.
(int, int) fun();
writeln(fun());
auto a = fun();
writeln(a);
What should happen?
Andrei
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
