F i L:
I sorta figured D would implicitly attribute static to nested
functions if the function didn't use any variables outside it's
scope. Is that not so?
I don't think DMD does that. Before assuming DMD performs one optimization, go
to read some of the asm it produces.
Why are you
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 12:35:14 UTC, bearophile wrote:
F i L:
I sorta figured D would implicitly attribute static to
nested functions if the function didn't use any variables
outside it's scope. Is that not so?
I don't think DMD does that. Before assuming DMD performs one
F i L:
Oh you crazy compiler developers. Thinking everyone can read ASM
;-)
I'd love to be able to develop compilers, but I am not that good yet :-)
Writing working asm is much simpler than writing efficient asm code (more
efficient than compiler generated one, even for SIMD code where
bearophile wrote:
Writing working asm is much simpler than...
Ya I've actually written ASM GPU shaders in the past. Not the
same instruction set as x86 or anything, but I know the basic
concept.
Though, there *could* be area for automatic optimization here,
right?
Currently DMD devs
On 13-2-2012 15:14, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
void setRandomColorPair( ref ColorPair cp )
{
import std.random;
ubyte u(int a, int b) { return cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
Where possible it's good to add static to nested functions:
Why?
On 03/09/2012 02:29 PM, Jos van Uden wrote:
On 13-2-2012 15:14, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
void setRandomColorPair( ref ColorPair cp )
{
import std.random;
ubyte u(int a, int b) { return cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
Where possible it's good to add static to nested functions:
Why?
Jos van Uden:
On 13-2-2012 15:14, bearophile wrote:
Where possible it's good to add static to nested functions:
Why?
For optimization, to be sure there's no closure allocation or a
second pointer. But also for code correctness, because static
functions can't use automatic variables
On Monday, 13 February 2012 at 14:14:38 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
void setRandomColorPair( ref ColorPair cp )
{
import std.random;
ubyte u(int a, int b) { return cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
Where possible it's good to add static to nested functions:
static ubyte u(in
I wrote this article because I felt like helping other people coming to
D, but I'm not sure where the appropriate place to make such a
contribution is. Maybe a Learning Articles or an Idioms section.
The One-Letter Nested Function
As a programmer new to D I wanted to share an idiom I've been
With 2.058 the single-letter function can become:
auto u = (int a, int b) = cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b);
It's not much of savings in typing.
The only problem is I can't seem to make it static:
static u = (int a, int b) = cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b);
Error: non-constant nested delegate literal
On 2/13/12 2:43 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
auto u = (a, b) = cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b);
Which would make 'u' a template. I'm not sure what the exact syntax
was that was requested though.
This could never work without major changes to the language, because 'u'
cannot be assigned a type.
Zach the Mystic:
void setRandomColorPair( ref ColorPair cp )
{
import std.random;
ubyte u(int a, int b) { return cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
Where possible it's good to add static to nested functions:
static ubyte u(in int a, in int b) pure nothrow { return cast(ubyte)
On 2/13/12, David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote:
This could never work without major changes to the language, because 'u'
cannot be assigned a type.
Yeah, the syntax is wrong. I found bear's post and the syntax:
alias (x = x ^^ 2) sqrTemplate;
So it would be:
alias ((a, b) =
On 13/02/2012 14:21, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 2/13/12, David Nadlingers...@klickverbot.at wrote:
This could never work without major changes to the language, because 'u'
cannot be assigned a type.
Yeah, the syntax is wrong. I found bear's post and the syntax:
alias (x = x ^^ 2)
On 2/13/12 9:14 AM, bearophile wrote:
Where possible it's good to add static to nested functions:
static ubyte u(in int a, in int b) pure nothrow { return cast(ubyte)
uniform(a,b); }
You're right. The only advantage to the way I wrote it is, possibly,
it's easier for new people (like
Zach the Mystic:
But I'm
pretty sure uniform is NOT a pure function. In fact, generating random
numbers is about as far opposite a pure function as you can get,
right? :-)
Right, and sorry, I didn't see the function contents.
If I don't run the D code you have to assume it's wrong code.
On 2/13/12 7:46 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On 2/13/12 2:43 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
auto u = (a, b) = cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b);
Which would make 'u' a template. I'm not sure what the exact syntax
was that was requested though.
This could never work without major changes to the language,
On 2/13/12 11:21 AM, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
Regarding pure random generators, I have asked it too:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5249
Aren't pure and random diametrically opposed in a fundamental way?
On 13 February 2012 17:01, Zach the Mystic
reachzachatgooglesmailserv...@dot.com wrote:
On 2/13/12 11:21 AM, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
Regarding pure random generators, I have asked it too:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5249
Aren't pure and random diametrically
On 02/13/2012 06:01 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
On 2/13/12 11:21 AM, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
Regarding pure random generators, I have asked it too:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5249
Aren't pure and random diametrically opposed in a fundamental way?
They are. It is
20 matches
Mail list logo
