grauzone n...@example.net wrote:
what does paraphernalia mean?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphernalia :
1. (sometimes used with a singular verb) equipment, apparatus, or
furnishing used in or necessary for a particular activity: a skier's
paraphernalia.
2.
On 2/14/10 19:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Currently new is baroque to the extreme. Should we eliminate the
class-specific allocators in favor of a simple scheme for placement new?
All that's really needed is to construct an object of a given type at a
given address. All of the syntactic mess
== Quote from Jacob Carlborg (d...@me.com)'s article
On 2/14/10 19:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Currently new is baroque to the extreme. Should we eliminate the
class-specific allocators in favor of a simple scheme for placement new?
All that's really needed is to construct an object of a
dsimcha wrote:
2. Pointer offset information for each type is determined at compile time using
template metaprogramming.
Why don't you just ask Walter to make dmd generate the necessary
information?
== Quote from grauzone (n...@example.net)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
2. Pointer offset information for each type is determined at compile time
using
template metaprogramming.
Why don't you just ask Walter to make dmd generate the necessary
information?
Three reasons:
1. Walter has
Sean Kelly wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Currently new is baroque to the extreme. Should we eliminate the
class-specific allocators in favor of a simple scheme for placement new?
All that's really needed is to construct an object of a given type at a
given address. All of the syntactic
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:17:44 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Currently new is baroque to the extreme. Should we eliminate the
class-specific allocators in favor of a simple scheme for placement new?
All that's really needed is to construct an object of a
On 02/15/2010 01:27 PM, grauzone wrote:
How is filling with .init not a waste of time?
It needs to fill with .init and run the default constructor (if any).
Contracts, and all that.
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:17:44 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Currently new is baroque to the extreme. Should we eliminate the
class-specific allocators in favor of a simple scheme for placement
new? All that's really needed is to
Currently new is baroque to the extreme. Should we eliminate the
class-specific allocators in favor of a simple scheme for placement new?
All that's really needed is to construct an object of a given type at a
given address. All of the syntactic mess around it is unnecessary.
I think
Andrei Alexandrescu:
What do you think?
Can the new keyword be removed from D2 and replaced by some class method
new? :-)
Bye,
bearophile
On 2010-02-14 13:17:44 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Currently new is baroque to the extreme. Should we eliminate the
class-specific allocators in favor of a simple scheme for placement
new? All that's really needed is to construct an object of a given type
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-02-14 13:17:44 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Currently new is baroque to the extreme. Should we eliminate the
class-specific allocators in favor of a simple scheme for placement
new? All that's really needed is to construct an
Michel Fortin wrote:
Also, why remove anonymous classes?
Me thinks that whoever suggested that anonymous classes be removed is
best to remain anonymous. :-)
Justin Johansson
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:hl9n50$2f9...@digitalmars.com...
There are many problems with custom allocators. They hook the syntax and
do something that's unbecoming. new T must place T on the
garbage-collected heap, period. That gives the
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:hl9end$1u8...@digitalmars.com...
Second, the whole new anonymous class thing is for Java's sake. Do you
think we need to keep all that?
It doesn't bother me having it, but I can't say I can imagine ever having a
use
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:hl9n50$2f9...@digitalmars.com...
There are many problems with custom allocators. They hook the syntax and
do something that's unbecoming. new T must place T on the
garbage-collected heap, period.
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:hl9end$1u8...@digitalmars.com...
Second, the whole new anonymous class thing is for Java's sake. Do you
think we need to keep all that?
It doesn't bother me having it, but I can't say I can
== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a...@a.a)'s article
And as for
the infinite lifetime guarantee: I don't think I see any risk of a
custom-allocated object getting yanked out from under generic code unless
you did something *really* bizarre and obviouly pointless like lauch a
thread that
On 2010-02-14 15:41:30 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Hum, what's the syntax for placement delete?
There is no need for placement delete. There will be a function clear()
in object.d that only calls the destructor. (That is needed
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-02-14 15:41:30 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Hum, what's the syntax for placement delete?
There is no need for placement delete. There will be a function
clear() in object.d that only calls the destructor.
I suggest the following syntaxes for a type T, an integral length, an
initializerlist a la e1, e2, e3, ... that could be empty, and an addr
convertible to void*:
new T[length]
new T(initializerlist)
This may be a bit off-topic, but now is the chance to think about the
array-new'ing syntax...
On 2010-02-14 17:21:51 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-02-14 15:41:30 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Hum, what's the syntax for placement delete?
There is no need for
Kasumi Hanazuki wrote:
I suggest the following syntaxes for a type T, an integral length, an
initializerlist a la e1, e2, e3, ... that could be empty, and an addr
convertible to void*:
new T[length]
new T(initializerlist)
This may be a bit off-topic, but now is the chance to think about the
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Also, if you really want to put an object back in it's initial state,
you could call both the destructor and the constructor. Anything else is
going to break the object's invariant. I think it's best to leave
breaking the object's invariants to a special syntax,
25 matches
Mail list logo
