Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-10-01 Thread Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d
Am Sat, 1 Oct 2016 01:04:01 -0400 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu : > On 09/30/2016 11:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > > On 9/30/2016 7:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4827 still allows that but > >> specifies that > >> phobos

Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-10-01 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
On 10/01/2016 05:30 AM, Lodovico Giaretta wrote: On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 02:31:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4827 still allows that but specifies that phobos algorithms are not required to. -- Andrei I don't have much experience, but IMHO the

Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-10-01 Thread Lodovico Giaretta via Digitalmars-d
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 02:31:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4827 still allows that but specifies that phobos algorithms are not required to. -- Andrei I don't have much experience, but IMHO the length should be restricted to be any of the

Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-10-01 Thread Ilya Yaroshenko via Digitalmars-d
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 08:09:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Friday, September 30, 2016 22:31:23 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] Every time this comes up, I strongly argue in favor of requiring that length be size_t. Occasionally, that restriction is annoying,

Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-10-01 Thread Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, September 30, 2016 22:31:23 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4827 still allows that but > specifies that phobos algorithms are not required to. -- Andrei Every time this comes up, I strongly argue in favor of requiring that length be

Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-10-01 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 9/30/2016 10:04 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I'm all for generality, but of the useful kind. It seems to me supporting a complicated definition of length is a protracted proposition with little upside. That's why I'm going with the engineering solution in the PR. You make a good case.

Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-09-30 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
On 09/30/2016 11:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 9/30/2016 7:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4827 still allows that but specifies that phobos algorithms are not required to. -- Andrei A couple instances where a length may be longer than the address space:

Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-09-30 Thread Meta via Digitalmars-d
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 02:31:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4827 still allows that but specifies that phobos algorithms are not required to. -- Andrei In at least some cases it's bad. See:

Re: Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-09-30 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 9/30/2016 7:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4827 still allows that but specifies that phobos algorithms are not required to. -- Andrei A couple instances where a length may be longer than the address space: 1. large files 2. sequences of

Should r.length of type ulong be supported on 32-bit systems?

2016-09-30 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4827 still allows that but specifies that phobos algorithms are not required to. -- Andrei