dsimcha Wrote:
[...]
I'd like any comments anyone might have on to what extent
arbitrarily expensive postblits should be considered in the
design of Phobos.
I agree with you: expensive post-blits just don't seem sufficiently
necessary in D to warp the design of the standard library around
On 8/27/10 7:44 PDT, Pillsy wrote:
dsimcha Wrote:
[...]
I'd like any comments anyone might have on to what extent
arbitrarily expensive postblits should be considered in the
design of Phobos.
I agree with you: expensive post-blits just don't seem sufficiently
necessary in D to warp the design
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
On 8/27/10 7:44 PDT, Pillsy wrote:
dsimcha Wrote:
[...]
I'd like any comments anyone might have on to what extent
arbitrarily expensive postblits should be considered in the
design of Phobos.
I agree with
On 2010-08-27 14:04:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Add to this the implementation annoyance of checking for aliasing in
_every_ single method of the type. RefCounted in phobos can help with
that, but not without a cost.
Also, to get reference counting
Andrei and I were talking on the Phobos list and deep in a newsgroup thread
about whether Phobos should make a serious effort to efficiently support
structs with arbitrarily complex, expensive postblits. Such support includes
the moveFront(), moveBack() and moveAt() range primitives, which are
