I've reread the relevant TDPL chapter and I still don't quite understand the
following:
1. What is shared? Is it simply a piece of syntactic salt to make it hard to
share data across threads by accident, or is there more to it?
2. Is it fully or mostly implemented?
struct Bob
{
void setThing() shared;
}
As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee that I dun
synchronisation internally.
This method is declared shared, so if I have shared instances, I can
call it... because it must handle thread-safety internally.
void f(ref shared Bob a, ref
I had D code that provided a basis for creation of Windows services,
which I have just tried to get working with the latest D2.
No dice.
The point of failure was in this method
static void StartService()
{
if (!StartServiceCtrlDispatcherA(cast(SERVICE_TABLE_ENTRY *) &_sta[0]))
{
...
Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this, but I have a
few questions about shared delegates because right now they are definitely
broken, but I'm not sure how.
Take this code example:
synchronized class Thing {
void doSomeWork(void delegate()
Sent this to dmd-internals, opening for a broader discussion:
Hello,
I wonder how we can define a few aliases of project-wide usefulness to
git. For example, I tried today to get the latest and greatest phobos
into my repo, and got a bunch of conflicts. I searched a while on the
net to figur
Hi group,
I've been reading up on D for the past few days--something I'd been
planning to do for quite a while--and find much to like and little to
dislike; as such, I am considering using it for my next project, which
would run on Linux (and possibly some other POSIX systems) and would
need to lo
== Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article
> I've reread the relevant TDPL chapter and I still don't quite understand the
> following:
> 1. What is shared? Is it simply a piece of syntactic salt to make it hard to
> share data across threads by accident, or is
On 02/08/10 02:16, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article
I've reread the relevant TDPL chapter and I still don't quite understand the
following:
1. What is shared? Is it simply a piece of syntactic salt to make it hard to
share data across thre
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:46:58 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article
I've reread the relevant TDPL chapter and I still don't quite
understand the
following:
1. What is shared? Is it simply a piece of syntactic salt to make it
hard to
sh
It seems to me that the way things are currently implemented that a
class itself has to be specifically made to handle being shared. That
is to say, I cannot import some general library and do (new shared
LibraryType()) if the class doesn't support all the proper shared
methods. In
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
struct Bob
{
void setThing() shared;
}
As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee that
I dun
synchronisation internally.
This method is declared shared, so if I have shared instances,
I can
call it... because it must
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:20 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > struct Bob
> > {
> > void setThing() shared;
> > }
> >
> > As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to gu
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 03:33:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:20 PM Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
> struct Bob
> {
> void setThing() shared;
> }
>
> As I understand, `shared` attr
0 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> > struct Bob
> >> > {
> >> > void setThing() shared;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee
> >> > that
> >> > I dun
> >> >
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 04:22:24 UTC, Manu wrote:
Ah, good point. So, it could only be allowed if scope...
struct Bob
{
void setThing() shared scope;
}
That's going to require far-reaching proliferation of `scope`.
Do we infer `scope` like the other attributes?
For templates (e
On 10/01/2018 04:29 AM, Manu wrote:
struct Bob
{
void setThing() shared;
}
[...]
void f(ref shared Bob a, ref Bob b)
{
a.setThing(); // I have a shared object, can call shared method
b.setThing(); // ERROR
}
This is the bit of the design that doesn't make sense to me...
The m
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 06:06:31 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
`shared` isn't analogous to `const`. It's analogous to
`immutable`. Functions dealing with `shared` data can assume
that other threads also see the data as `shared`. If you allow
calling `shared` methods on non-`shared` objec
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
So, I know that there's not a bunch of threads banging on this
object... but the shared method should still work! A method that
handles thread-safety doesn't suddenly not work when it's only
accessed from a single thread.
On 10/01/2018 08:47 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
In order to be safe, a mutable parameter can be implicitly cast to
shared iff the parameter is also scope (that includes the `this`
reference`). With an implicit cast in place of the explicit cast under
the new rules it would fail to compile
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 08:04:38 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Shared data may need different algorithms.
Yes, but those same algorithms will work on unshared (they might
be slower but they will work). The reverse is not true, it can
lead to race conditions.
If unshared data is
implicitly
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 09:55:41 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 10/01/2018 08:47 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
In order to be safe, a mutable parameter can be implicitly
cast to shared iff the parameter is also scope (that includes
the `this` reference`). With an implicit cast in place of the
On Monday, October 1, 2018 3:55:41 AM MDT ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 10/01/2018 08:47 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > In order to be safe, a mutable parameter can be implicitly cast to
> > shared iff the parameter is also scope (that includes the `this`
> > referenc
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
struct Bob
{
void setThing() shared;
}
As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee that
I dun
synchronisation internally.
This method is declared shared, so if I have shared instances,
I can
call it... because it must
On 01.10.2018 04:29, Manu wrote:
struct Bob
{
void setThing() shared;
}
As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee that I dun
synchronisation internally.
This method is declared shared, so if I have shared instances, I can
call it... because it must handle thread-safety
On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
I feel like I don't understand the design...
mutable -> shared should work the same as mutable -> const...
because
surely that's safe?
Nope. Consider.
struct A {
A* a;
}
void foo(shared A* a) {
a.a = new shar
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:51 AM Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> pure is not sufficient regardless of what happens with threads, [..]
#truefacts
> Certainly, it's way, way simply just to use scope and force
> the programmer to continue to cast in those cases that the compiler can't
>
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:55 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 01.10.2018 04:29, Manu wrote:
> > struct Bob
> > {
> > void setThing() shared;
> > }
> >
> > As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee that I dun
> >
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:45 AM deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > I feel like I don't understand the design...
> > mutable -> shared should work the same as mutable -> const...
> > because
&
is
because you can't mutate it. Shared is not the same.
simple example:
void foo(scope shared int *a, scope shared int *b)
{
a = b;
}
Haha, of course, this has no effect!
In order for it to show the problem, a has to be ref'd.
-Steve
On 10/1/18 7:09 PM, Manu wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:55 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 01.10.2018 04:29, Manu wrote:
struct Bob
{
void setThing() shared;
}
As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee that I dun
synchronisation internally.
This method is
On 02.10.2018 01:09, Manu wrote:
Your entire example depends on escaping references. I think you missed
the point?
There was no 'scope' in the OP, and no, that is not sufficient either,
because scope is not transitive but shared is.
On 10/1/2018 4:56 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
There was no 'scope' in the OP, and no, that is not sufficient either, because
scope is not transitive but shared is.
Oops, I missed that point. Glad you noticed it.
ent either,
> because scope is not transitive but shared is.
Surely `scope` must be transitive? How could it work otherwise?
On 10/1/2018 7:31 PM, Manu wrote:
Surely `scope` must be transitive?
It isn't.
How could it work otherwise?
It's a storage class, not a type constructor. There is no "pointer to scope"
type, for example. Having it transitive would make it unworkable, actually, for
similar reasons that tra
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:45 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/1/2018 7:31 PM, Manu wrote:
> > Surely `scope` must be transitive?
>
> It isn't.
>
> > How could it work otherwise?
>
> It's a storage class, not a type constructor. There is no "pointer to scope"
> type, for example.
On 10/2/2018 1:49 PM, Manu wrote:
So... `scope` says "I won't escape this, but I may escape anything
this points to"?
That's right.
http://dconf.org/2017/talks/bright.html
On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 21:35:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/2/2018 1:49 PM, Manu wrote:
So... `scope` says "I won't escape this, but I may escape
anything
this points to"?
That's right.
http://dconf.org/2017/talks/bright.html
I'm confused. Given how the lifetimes of aggregates a
On 10/3/2018 1:33 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
I'm confused. Given how the lifetimes of aggregates are defined in DIP1000, and
also given that I tried to escape members of a struct when I wrote fearless and
the compiler didn't let me, I'm trying to understand in what situation scope
doesn't apply tra
On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 07:42:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Having it transitive would make it unworkable, actually
What would be broken by transitive scope?
I've recently updated to DMD2.035 (from DMD2.031 because all the later
versions had issues with imports) and for the first time faced problems
with shared modifier.
I don't need shared and all my globals are __gshared (they are globally
unique instances that don't need pe
I just wanted to float an idea out there. I have been using technologies such
as Terracotta and Memcache at work. Terracotta, has left me wondering about
the applicability of integrating shared objects (memory) directly into a
programming language. Is this anything anybody else here has
I was able to build D runtime shared library (.so). The test app dies with
segmentation fault, I am debugging it; decided to share.
To reproduce my results one can load makefile from here:
http://www.curoles.com/j/dso/so.mak
(drop it into the runtime directory and call make -f so.mak)
The
I'm not familiar with the API, but are you able to declare your original _sta
as immutable and call it a day? Immutable data should have the same protection
as __gshared but with no implications of bypassing the type system.
If that's not helpful, can you give more details like calling patterns?
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:26:39 -0500, Steve Teale
wrote:
I had D code that provided a basis for creation of Windows services,
which I have just tried to get working with the latest D2.
No dice.
The point of failure was in this method
static void StartService()
{
if (!StartServiceCtrlDis
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:33:12 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
> I think using a class in D is a good idea. But what you may need is
> global functions which forward to your class methods. This is how I
> would probably do it.
>
> -Steve
Steve,
Thanks. I kind of went that way. Having done
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:53:53 -0500, Steve Teale
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:33:12 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think using a class in D is a good idea. But what you may need is
global functions which forward to your class methods. This is how I
would probably do it.
-Steve
S
> As I said before, I don't know if the thread being created by the
> windows service procedure is properly initializing the D modules of the
> library/runtime. Try as the first line of ServiceMain to initialize the
> current thread:
>
> auto mythread = thread_attachThis();
>
> see http://www.d
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:26:39 +, Steve Teale wrote:
> I had D code that provided a basis for creation of Windows services,
> which I have just tried to get working with the latest D2.
>
> No dice.
>
I have made some progress in understanding this. It appears that any D
static data structures
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:49:30 -0500, Steve Teale
wrote:
As I said before, I don't know if the thread being created by the
windows service procedure is properly initializing the D modules of the
library/runtime. Try as the first line of ServiceMain to initialize the
current thread:
auto myt
A cast to immutable is required when constructing immutable objects. The type
system can't prove that's safe. It's a design limitation to keep complexity low.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_regexp.html
Looking at the Regexp docs, find isn't marked const or pure. If that's an
oversit
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:25:17 -0500, Jason House wrote:
> A cast to immutable is required when constructing immutable objects. The
> type system can't prove that's safe. It's a design limitation to keep
> complexity low.
>
Jason,
But design limitations like that will force programmers who are on
Steve Teale:
> Languages can't be designed just on theory - some recognition of
> practicality is also required.
In the case of creation of immutable data structures it looks the opposite to
me: DMD is too much pragmatic and there isn't enough theory behind it :-)
> But design limitations lik
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:23:44 -0500, bearophile wrote:
> Regarding the creation of immutable data structures, there is a proposal
> that is probably able to remove some of the pain: the result of strongly
> pure functions may become implicitly castable to immutable.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
BP,
I a
On 19-nov-10, at 17:42, Steve Teale wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:23:44 -0500, bearophile wrote:
Regarding the creation of immutable data structures, there is a
proposal
that is probably able to remove some of the pain: the result of
strongly
pure functions may become implicitly castable
Steve Teale:
> I admire your dedication to language theory and purity, but there are
> many who'd translate that to impracticality and obscurity.
I like that idea about immutables & strong pure functions, but it was not an
idea of mine :-) That enhancement request in Bugzilla is not written by
Steve Teale Wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:25:17 -0500, Jason House wrote:
>
> > A cast to immutable is required when constructing immutable objects. The
> > type system can't prove that's safe. It's a design limitation to keep
> > complexity low.
> >
> Jason,
>
> But design limitations like t
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:21:41 -0500, Jason House wrote:
> Steve Teale Wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:25:17 -0500, Jason House wrote:
>>
>> > A cast to immutable is required when constructing immutable objects.
>> > The type system can't prove that's safe. It's a design limitation to
>> > keep
On 2011-10-17 20:33:59 +, Andrew Wiley said:
Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this, but I have a
few questions about shared delegates because right now they are definitely
broken, but I'm not sure how.
Take this code example:
synchronized class Thing {
Am 17.10.2011 22:43, schrieb Michel Fortin:
On 2011-10-17 20:33:59 +, Andrew Wiley said:
Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this, but I have a
few questions about shared delegates because right now they are
definitely
broken, but I'm not sure how.
Take this
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Am 17.10.2011 22:43, schrieb Michel Fortin:
>
> On 2011-10-17 20:33:59 +, Andrew Wiley
>> said:
>>
>>
>>> Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this, but I have a
>>>
gt;> said:
Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this,
but I have a
few questions about shared delegates because right now they are
definitely
broken, but I'm not sure how.
Take this code example:
synchro
gt;
>>On 2011-10-17 20:33:59 +, Andrew Wiley
>>> <mailto:wiley.andrew.j@gmail.**com>>
>> said:
>>
>>
>>Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this,
>>but I have a
>>few que
> wrote:
>>>
>>>Am 17.10.2011 22:43, schrieb Michel Fortin:
>>>
>>>On 2011-10-17 20:33:59 +, Andrew Wiley
>>>>> <mailto:wiley.andrew.j@gmail.**com>>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2011-10-17 20:33:59 +, Andrew Wiley
> said:
>
>
>> Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this, but I have a
>> few questions about shared delegates because right now they are definitely
>
On 2011-10-19 20:36:37 +, Andrew Wiley said:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2011-10-17 20:33:59 +, Andrew Wiley
said:
Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this, but I have a
few questions about shared delegates because right now they
;>>
>>> Okay, I realize there have been some discussions about this, but I have
>>>> a
>>>> few questions about shared delegates because right now they are
>>>> definitely
>>>> broken, but I'm not sure how.
>>>> Tak
have been some discussions about this, but I have
a
few questions about shared delegates because right now they are
definitely
broken, but I'm not sure how.
Take this code example:
synchronized class Thing {
void doSomeWork(void delegate() work) {
work();
}
void work() {}
}
void main() {
au
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:51:25 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2011-10-19 21:53:12 +, Andrew Wiley said:
[snip]
Also, I how shared works is being misunderstood. Making a class synchronized
should limit all member functions and field to being shared or immutable, but
it doesn't plac
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:51:25 -0400, Michel Fortin <
> michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-10-19 21:53:12 +, Andrew Wiley
>> said:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
> Also, I how shared
;
synchronized abstract class Bob {
private:
int _i = 2;
public:
@property
int i() {
return _i;
}
}
synchronized class Bill : Bob {
public:
@property
int thing() {
return super.i(); //test2.d(18): Error: function test2.Bob.i () shared is
not callable using argument types ()
}
}
But the
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 14:50:49 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Sent this to dmd-internals, opening for a broader discussion:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> I wonder how we can define a few aliases of project-wide usefulness to
> git. For example, I tried today to get the latest and greatest phobos
> into m
On 2013-01-06 21:47, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But with regards to this particular command, I'd argue that you're doing
something wrong if you need to force a rebase with a pull.
I agree.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Sunday, 6 January 2013 at 19:50:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Sent this to dmd-internals, opening for a broader discussion:
Hello,
I wonder how we can define a few aliases of project-wide
usefulness to git. For example, I tried today to get the latest
and greatest phobos into my repo
On 1/6/13 4:03 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sunday, 6 January 2013 at 19:50:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
git pull --rebase -s recursive -X ours
Question: Do you know what exactly does this command do?
I do now after having read about it at the end of several google searches.
Git
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 17:45:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I get these tidbits of commands - git idioms - all the time, and I
> forget them because I don't use them frequently. I don't see why it's a
> crime to want to define some macros for such idioms instead of
> essentially putting that
On 1/6/13 6:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 17:45:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I get these tidbits of commands - git idioms - all the time, and I
forget them because I don't use them frequently. I don't see why it's a
crime to want to define some macros for such idiom
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 18:12:20 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/6/13 6:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 06, 2013 17:45:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> I get these tidbits of commands - git idioms - all the time, and I
> >> forget them because I don't use them frequent
On Sunday, 6 January 2013 at 22:45:27 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I do now after having read about it at the end of several
google searches.
I found the git documentation to be an excellent resource once
you're familiar with the basic concept of how git works. For
that, I found this quite
On 1/6/13 3:41 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'm arguing that people should actually learn how to use git properly rather
than creating crutches for themselves.
False choice.
The more you try and do with git
without learning it properly, the more problems you're likely to run into
(e.g. by runn
On 1/6/13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> What I'd want to do next is define the alias such that other
> participants to the dlang project may use it. With time we'd collect a
> good set of macros that help our process.
This is what I use locally in my .bashrc:
# win32 helpers
alias cd..='cd ..'
a
On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 01:54:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/6/13 3:41 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'm arguing that people should actually learn how to use git
properly rather
than creating crutches for themselves.
False choice.
Yet one should come before the other.
The mor
On Sunday, 6 January 2013 at 19:50:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
For example, I tried today to get the latest and greatest
phobos into my repo, and got a bunch of conflicts. I searched a
while on the net to figure what the command for "just get the
latest remote into my local copy", which
On 1/7/13 10:56 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sunday, 6 January 2013 at 19:50:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
For example, I tried today to get the latest and greatest phobos into
my repo, and got a bunch of conflicts. I searched a while on the net
to figure what the command for "just get
On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 07:07:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
This script is bad because it does not do any meaningful error
handling and offers no good explanation on how to proceed if
either step fails.
Indeed - I wanted to avoid using any syntax / commands that
someone wouldn't us
On Monday, January 07, 2013 17:54:40 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I know how the shell works quite well but that doesn't stop me from
> writing scripts and aliases.
>
> This boils down to advocating one needs to type by hand sequences of
> commands instead of defining higher-level scripts that hav
On 01/06/2013 02:50 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Sent this to dmd-internals, opening for a broader discussion:
Hello,
I wonder how we can define a few aliases of project-wide usefulness to
git. For example, I tried today to get the latest and greatest phobos
into my repo, and got a bunch of
tl;dr: more local branches means less need for arcane git
options.
--Ed
AFAIR you can resist the temptation to have a local master branch
at all and just run "git pull --rebase upstream/master" where
upstream is configured to be original D repo.
On 01/10/2013 04:20 AM, mist wrote:
tl;dr: more local branches means less need for arcane git options.
--Ed
AFAIR you can resist the temptation to have a local master branch at all
and just run "git pull --rebase upstream/master" where upstream is
configured to be original D repo.
And then y
And then you're right back where we started; Andrei's original
problem was how to just get a local copy of the latest and
greatest upstream without having merge conflicts, which (if you
don't have a separate local master) means using "git pull
--rebase -s recursive -X ours".
But: "rebase -X
On 01/11/2013 12:35 PM, mist wrote:
I do not propose to get rid of master at all,
just made an observation that it is easy to make small fix directly on
master when it is hanging around so close.
Looks like we're in violent agreement :) Mainly, I was trying to argue
against the inclusion of An
Greetings
I am trying to create a multithreaded application. Right now I am finding it
difficult to work with "shared" qualifier. One of the reasons is that Phobos
library does not seem compatible with "shared" data-structures. For example:
import std.bitmanip;
shared Bit
On 2012-06-18 16:56, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi group,
I've been reading up on D for the past few days--something I'd been
planning to do for quite a while--and find much to like and little to
dislike; as such, I am considering using it for my next project, which
would run on Linux (and possibly
Jacob Carlborg writes:
> On 2012-06-18 16:56, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> However, what
>> I don't find is the answer to the two following questions:
>>
>> - Does D support dlopen(), or some similar mechanism, to allow me to
>>load plugins at runtime?
>
> Yes. You can compile D code to a standa
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 15:22:19 UTC, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Ah, too bad.
Do you have a pointer to some more detailed information on
this? Just so
I can get a feel for how fast things are moving, and/or whether
it's
worth for me to wait for that -- I can get started on the other
parts;
wh
I'm not too experienced with Github - am I right in thinking that
the SharedRuntime repository has been idle for six months? If so,
does this indicate that Martin has likely abandoned the project?
Like Wouter, I'm looking into developing a project with D that
would eventually require plugins, and
On 2012-06-20 09:50, R. Grocott wrote:
I'm not too experienced with Github - am I right in thinking that
the SharedRuntime repository has been idle for six months? If so,
does this indicate that Martin has likely abandoned the project?
The last commit was three months ago, Mars 20, 2012:
https
Evening.
I'm having a bit of a problem and I'm hoping someone can help. I'm
trying to create a class that is shared across threads. The only
purpose of this class is to write data to somewhere, though currently a
file. A single-threaded version of this works fine, however I
On Saturday, 9 November 2013 at 16:55:18 UTC, s...@s.com wrote:
It seems to me that the way things are currently implemented
that a class itself has to be specifically made to handle being
shared. That is to say, I cannot import some general library
and do (new shared LibraryType()) if the
On Saturday, November 09, 2013 11:55:19 s...@s.com wrote:
> It seems to me that the way things are currently implemented that a
> class itself has to be specifically made to handle being shared. That
> is to say, I cannot import some general library and do (new shared
> LibraryTy
On 2013-11-09 17:12:46 +, evilrat said:
On Saturday, 9 November 2013 at 16:55:18 UTC, s...@s.com wrote:
It seems to me that the way things are currently implemented that a
class itself has to be specifically made to handle being shared. That
is to say, I cannot import some general
1 - 100 of 1314 matches
Mail list logo
