dsimcha wrote:
Ok, now that the new docs are up, I'm kind of curious about what's a fundamental
limitation vs. a todo. I assume the following are fundamental limitations,
since
CTFE has no concept of threading or global state and works by interpreting the
code, not executing it directly on the
On Saturday 30 July 2011 21:09:48 Don wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
The following look like they are simple matters of programming and could
be implemented eventually:
With statements, scope statements, try-catch-finally statements, throw
statements.
Delete expressions.
Classes and
Ok, now that the new docs are up, I'm kind of curious about what's a fundamental
limitation vs. a todo. I assume the following are fundamental limitations,
since
CTFE has no concept of threading or global state and works by interpreting the
code, not executing it directly on the architecture
Ok, now that the new docs are up, I'm kind of curious about what's a
fundamental limitation vs. a todo. I assume the following are fundamental
limitations, since CTFE has no concept of threading or global state and
works by interpreting the code, not executing it directly on the
architecture
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1817.1311202371.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 2011-07-20 15:37, Don wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yet again, a new DMD release has broken my code, and other people's
code,
too, just because of Phobos functions
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On 2011-07-12 17:16, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1576.1310513383.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 2011-07-12 16:17, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I don't understand what strip() could be doing to break CTFE
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yet again, a new DMD release has broken my code, and other people's code,
too, just because of Phobos functions loosing their CTFE-ability. (strip(),
toLower(), etc... And yes, I did bring up the strip() regression on the beta
list, to no effect.)
The situation is,
On 2011-07-20 15:37, Don wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yet again, a new DMD release has broken my code, and other people's code,
too, just because of Phobos functions loosing their CTFE-ability.
(strip(), toLower(), etc... And yes, I did bring up the strip()
regression on the beta list,
On Tuesday 12 July 2011 22:50:14 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I'd like to point out that *normal code* in Phobos is losing
functionality far too often too, like replace() no longer working
on immutable strings as of the last release.
Generalized templates are great, but not at the cost of existing
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/143
Excellent! Thank you.
Jonathan,
Given that D2 is now the main version, would it not be possible - maybe
in the future - if big changes like the CTFE work by Don are planned to
bring to do this in a 2.1 release of D (and once stable bump to a 2.2
release or so)... While the big changes happen in 2.1, the 2 releases
On 2011-07-13 13:58, filgood wrote:
Jonathan,
Given that D2 is now the main version, would it not be possible - maybe
in the future - if big changes like the CTFE work by Don are planned to
bring to do this in a 2.1 release of D (and once stable bump to a 2.2
release or so)... While the big
Yet again, a new DMD release has broken my code, and other people's code,
too, just because of Phobos functions loosing their CTFE-ability. (strip(),
toLower(), etc... And yes, I did bring up the strip() regression on the beta
list, to no effect.)
We praise and promote the hell out of CTFE
I'd like to point out that *normal code* in Phobos is losing
functionality far too often too, like replace() no longer working
on immutable strings as of the last release.
Generalized templates are great, but not at the cost of existing
functionality!
I totally agree.
At least simple functions like string manipulation need to be available at
compile-time to use string mixins properly.
2.051 broke replace(), then it was fixed.
2.052 broke it again by moving it into std.array and changing the
implementation.
Now with 2.054 toUpper() is
Last time I brought this issue up in bugzilla it was shot down with
We don't guarantee and don't have to guarantee functions will always
be CTFE-able between releases.
I end up having to put initializers in a module ctor. Not nice!
Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1574.1310511524.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Last time I brought this issue up in bugzilla it was shot down with
We don't guarantee and don't have to guarantee functions will always
be CTFE-able between releases.
I don't understand what strip() could be doing to break CTFE anyway?
On 7/12/2011 7:17 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I don't understand what strip() could be doing to break CTFE anyway?
I believe a lot of the std.string functionality was modified to use
routines in druntime in this latest release. The default sc.ini links to
a static druntime lib as opposed to
On 2011-07-12 16:17, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I don't understand what strip() could be doing to break CTFE anyway?
Don has been making huge changes to CTFE. Stuff that didn't used to compile,
now complie. Stuff which compiled but shouldn't have now doesn't compile.
There's probably stuff which
On 7/13/11 1:29 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, basically, a lot of CTFE changes have been happening, and Don has said
pretty much said that we're not currently making guarantees about what's
CTFEable and what isn't. And until the changes stabilize and Don is willing to
make guarantees, Phobos
Am 13.07.2011, 01:24 Uhr, schrieb Johann MacDonagh
johann.macdonagh@spam..gmail.com:
On 7/12/2011 7:17 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I don't understand what strip() could be doing to break CTFE anyway?
I believe a lot of the std.string functionality was modified to use
routines in
On 7/12/2011 7:35 PM, Trass3r wrote:
Am 13.07.2011, 01:24 Uhr, schrieb Johann MacDonagh
johann.macdonagh@spam..gmail.com:
On 7/12/2011 7:17 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I don't understand what strip() could be doing to break CTFE anyway?
I believe a lot of the std.string functionality was
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1576.1310513383.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 2011-07-12 16:17, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I don't understand what strip() could be doing to break CTFE anyway?
Don has been making huge changes to CTFE. Stuff that didn't
On 2011-07-12 15:50, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I'd like to point out that *normal code* in Phobos is losing
functionality far too often too, like replace() no longer working
on immutable strings as of the last release.
Generalized templates are great, but not at the cost of existing
On 2011-07-12 17:16, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1576.1310513383.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 2011-07-12 16:17, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I don't understand what strip() could be doing to break CTFE anyway?
Don has
== Quote from Adam D. Ruppe (destructiona...@gmail.com)'s article
I'd like to point out that *normal code* in Phobos is losing
functionality far too often too, like replace() no longer working
on immutable strings as of the last release.
Generalized templates are great, but not at the cost of
== Quote from Andrej Mitrovic (andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com)'s article
Last time I brought this issue up in bugzilla it was shot down with
We don't guarantee and don't have to guarantee functions will
always
be CTFE-able between releases.
Maybe there should be a std.ctfe.* that looks a bit like
On 7/12/2011 7:14 PM, bcs wrote:
== Quote from Adam D. Ruppe (destructiona...@gmail.com)'s article
I'd like to point out that *normal code* in Phobos is losing
functionality far too often too, like replace() no longer working
on immutable strings as of the last release.
Generalized templates
== Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@puremagic.com)'s article
On 7/12/2011 7:14 PM, bcs wrote:
== Quote from Adam D. Ruppe (destructiona...@gmail.com)'s article
I'd like to point out that *normal code* in Phobos is losing
functionality far too often too, like replace() no longer working
on
bcs b...@example.com wrote in message
news:iviv9h$2ee$1...@digitalmars.com...
== Quote from Andrej Mitrovic (andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com)'s article
Last time I brought this issue up in bugzilla it was shot down with
We don't guarantee and don't have to guarantee functions will
always
be
== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a@a.a)'s article
bcs b...@example.com wrote in message
news:iviv9h$2ee$1...@digitalmars.com...
== Quote from Andrej Mitrovic (andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com)'s
article
Last time I brought this issue up in bugzilla it was shot down
with
We don't guarantee and
32 matches
Mail list logo
