On 16.04.2012 05:22, Mehrdad wrote:
So we're removing it to reduce the number of keywords? ...Why?
Is the keyword-ness of cdouble and ifloat, etc. causing problems for
people?
Not problems, but serious eye sores: Personally, I am really happy that
ireal and creal are going to drop out of the
On Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 18:46:13 UTC, Norbert Nemec wrote:
On 16.04.2012 05:22, Mehrdad wrote:
So we're removing it to reduce the number of keywords? ...Why?
Is the keyword-ness of cdouble and ifloat, etc. causing
problems for
people?
Not problems, but serious eye sores: Personally, I
On 15/04/12 23:37, Tove wrote:
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 21:09:13 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
I absolutely do not think it does. There is nothing you can do with a
pure imaginary type that you cannot do with a complex type.
Furthermore, the imaginary numbers have the unfortunate property
On 15/04/12 23:37, Caligo wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.net wrote:
If there is anything missing from the module, I will be
happy to add it.
-Lars
How about Quaternions?
If such were to be added, I think it would be better to put them in a
On 15/04/12 23:56, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 15/04/2012 22:09, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On 15/04/12 14:29, Stewart Gordon wrote:
snip
My impression was that the plan is to deprecate it once the stuff in
std.complex is complete. std.complex has clearly grown since that
discussion, but it
On 16/04/12 00:31, bearophile wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad:
If there is anything missing from the module, I will be happy to add it.
You have seen std.math.expi, that returns a creal using the instructions
sincos plus a registers swap (so it returns complex(cos,sin)). Maybe
it's worth adding
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 06:06:12 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
How should the IEEE system be extended to the complex plane,
anyway? If we look at the problem in terms of the cartesian
representation, we may want four infinities, namely:
infinity + i * infinity
-infinity + i *
On 15/04/12 06:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 4/14/12 10:10 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
I don't think that page makes a compelling argument, but I'm not an
expert. If Walter and Don agree, I'd remove the
On 16/04/2012 07:06, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
snip
For any standard type (built-in or library) to be useful, it has to actually be
used for
something.
You mean someone has to use it in order to prove that it's usable and therefore useful?
Well, if a feature isn't usable, it's probably due
Le 16/04/2012 08:09, Lars T. Kyllingstad a écrit :
On 15/04/12 23:37, Caligo wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.net wrote:
If there is anything missing from the module, I will be
happy to add it.
-Lars
How about Quaternions?
If such were to
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 11:27:29 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 16/04/2012 07:06, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
snip
For any standard type (built-in or library) to be useful, it
has to actually be used for
something.
You mean someone has to use it in order to prove that it's
usable and
On 4/16/12 4:21 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 15/04/12 06:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 4/14/12 10:10 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
I don't think that page makes a compelling argument, but I'm not an
expert.
On 16/04/2012 12:42, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
snip
Do you feel the SETI Institute should have given up years ago?
I don't really see the similarity between SETI and Phobos.
They've been working for decades in the hope of finding aliens. In the same way,
imaginary types have been put into
On 15/04/2012 04:56, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
snip
It was probably the same reasoning that lead to moving the AA implementation
into druntime, but I don't remember any specifics.
No. The AA implementation was moved into druntime because that's where it belongs. Under
D1, stuff like that is
On 15/04/2012 04:10, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
There was a brief discussion about it back in 2008
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Replacing_built-in_complex_What_s_this_about_81214.html
My
On 15/04/12 14:29, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 15/04/2012 04:10, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
There was a brief discussion about it back in 2008
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.net wrote:
If there is anything missing from the module, I will be
happy to add it.
-Lars
How about Quaternions?
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 21:09:13 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
I absolutely do not think it does. There is nothing you can do
with a pure imaginary type that you cannot do with a complex
type. Furthermore, the imaginary numbers have the unfortunate
property of not being closed under
On 15/04/2012 22:09, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On 15/04/12 14:29, Stewart Gordon wrote:
snip
My impression was that the plan is to deprecate it once the stuff in
std.complex is complete. std.complex has clearly grown since that
discussion, but it still needs a pure imaginary type (and I don't
Lars T. Kyllingstad:
If there is anything missing from the module, I will be happy
to add it.
You have seen std.math.expi, that returns a creal using the
instructions sincos plus a registers swap (so it returns
complex(cos,sin)). Maybe it's worth adding to Phobos a fully
inlinable
On 15/04/2012 23:31, bearophile wrote:
snip
You have seen std.math.expi, that returns a creal using the instructions sincos
plus a
registers swap (so it returns complex(cos,sin)). Maybe it's worth adding to
Phobos a fully
inlinable core.bitop.sincos intrinsic that performs just the sincos.
Stewart Gordon:
But in what way are trig functions bit-level operations?
That module should be named core.intrinsics.
Bye,
bearophile
On 16-04-2012 00:31, bearophile wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad:
If there is anything missing from the module, I will be happy to add it.
You have seen std.math.expi, that returns a creal using the instructions
sincos plus a registers swap (so it returns complex(cos,sin)). Maybe
it's worth adding
So we're removing it to reduce the number of keywords? ...Why?
Is the keyword-ness of cdouble and ifloat, etc. causing problems for
people?
Stewart Gordon wrote in message news:jmeevc$o3m$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 15/04/2012 04:10, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What
Thanks but that just repeated my question...
Kapps wrote in message news:wedxqokomlaoagkss...@forum.dlang.org...
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 03:10:25 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
It's being replaced with a
Mehrdad wfunct...@hotmail.com wrote in message
news:jmg3ak$147c$1...@digitalmars.com...
So we're removing it to reduce the number of keywords? ...Why?
Is the keyword-ness of cdouble and ifloat, etc. causing problems for
people?
No. Complex types are special-cased in a lot of places in the
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Mehrdad wfunct...@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
Where does it say it's being phased out?
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 03:10:25 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
It's being replaced with a library implementation of it. I doubt
it will be deprecated before the library implementation is ready.
On Saturday, April 14, 2012 22:27:19 Caligo wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Mehrdad wfunct...@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
Where does it say it's being phased out?
It says so here:
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 05:50:33 Kapps wrote:
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 03:10:25 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
It's being replaced with a library implementation of it. I doubt
it will be deprecated
On 4/14/12 10:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, April 14, 2012 22:27:19 Caligo wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Mehrdadwfunct...@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
Where does it say it's being
On 4/14/12 10:10 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
Why is complex being phased out?
What happened to all this? http://dlang.org/cppcomplex.html
I don't think that page makes a compelling argument, but I'm not an
expert. If Walter and Don agree, I'd remove the page.
Andrei
33 matches
Mail list logo
