On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:00:04AM +0100, Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
[...]
I'm sorry. I went over the top. I apollogize.
I apologize too, for some of the inflammatory things I said in the heat
of the moment in some of my replies to this thread.
..I won't post for a while.
This thread is almost
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:51:34 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 2/21/12 6:11 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:12:57 -0600, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 02:33:15 UTC, Robert Jacques
wrote:
Nope.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 08:19:38 Robert Jacques wrote:
To Variant? Yes, definitely. To Appender? I don't think so. There is an
slight change in API behavior necessitated by performance considerations,
but I don't think it warrants a review by the community at large.
Specifically,
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:33:57 -0600, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 08:19:38 Robert Jacques wrote:
To Variant? Yes, definitely. To Appender? I don't think so. There is an
slight change in API behavior necessitated by performance
considerations,
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:16:43 Robert Jacques wrote:
There's a big difference between sealed and not accessible. .data's API
requires exposing an array, and there's no way to do this without leaking
memory like a sieve in one way or another. However, if all you need is to
iterate the
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 14:12:07 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:16:43 Robert Jacques wrote:
There's a big difference between sealed and not accessible. .data's API
requires exposing an array, and there's no way to do this without leaking
memory like a
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:12:07 -0600, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:16:43 Robert Jacques wrote:
There's a big difference between sealed and not accessible. .data's API
requires exposing an array, and there's no way to do this without
leaking
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 14:24:49 Robert Jacques wrote:
I view appender's purpose as array building, which is slightly different
from simply speeding up array appending. Simply put, an array is a
terrible data structure for building arrays. But, I can appreciate the
need for mutation
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:17:09 -0600, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 14:12:07 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:16:43 Robert Jacques wrote:
There's a big difference between sealed and not accessible. .data's
API
requires
No, because the array doesn't actually exist until appender
makes copy.
Will one be able to use the sort!()() algorithm directly on your
appender,
that is, without accessing/creating the underlying array?
--jm
On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 20:59:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
speed [...] is really its whole point of existance. I don't
know why else you'd ever use appender.
[...]
- Jonathan M Davis
A use case is to give identity to a built-in array.
Consider this:
class MyClass {
(And not talking about some cheesy insertion sort!!)
If you build an array once and for all, and all you want
is to do binary search on it later, it doesn't make sense to
allocate that big contiguous .data. I'd rather leave it
as an appender.
--jm
On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 23:22:35
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 01:38:05 Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
(And not talking about some cheesy insertion sort!!)
If you build an array once and for all, and all you want
is to do binary search on it later, it doesn't make sense to
allocate that big contiguous .data. I'd rather leave it
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 07:51:27PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
P.S. Please don't top post. Replies should go _after_ the preceding message.
Answer: Because it breaks the normal flow of conversation.
Question: Why is it bad to top-post?
T
--
Why waste time learning, when ignorance
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:51:27 -0600, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 01:38:05 Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
(And not talking about some cheesy insertion sort!!)
If you build an array once and for all, and all you want
is to do binary search on it later, it
On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 00:51:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[...]
If appender ends up with multiple arrays in it, then random
access is no longer O(1) and is therefore unacceptable. As
such, most sort algorithms wouldn't work with it.
If all I want is binary search on a big
On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 01:36:32 UTC, Juan Manuel Cabo
wrote:
If all I want is binary search on a big appender, then it
is O(k * n * log(n)), and that k right there doesn't
bother me.
(Where binary search is of course O(log(n))
and accessing individual elements with the proposed
On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 00:51:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
P.S. Please don't top post. Replies should go _after_ the
preceding message.
P.S: You are right though, that it wouldn't be O(1) anymore
and it should be said big in the documentation that it is
amortized.
--jm
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 02:36:31 Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
Yeah, but I don't care about the underlying array. I care
about multiple places referencing the same Appender. If I
from any place that references it, it appends to the same
appender. The Appender array has identity. Ranges do
On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 01:36:32 UTC, Juan Manuel Cabo
wrote:
On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 00:51:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[...]
If appender ends up with multiple arrays in it, then random
access is no longer O(1) and is therefore unacceptable. As
such, most sort algorithms
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:57:37 -0600, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 02:36:31 Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
Yeah, but I don't care about the underlying array. I care
about multiple places referencing the same Appender. If I
from any place that references
On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 01:57:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The D equivalent would really be Array, not Appender.
Array!T in D is ref counted and more geared towards T being a
struct. And I had big trouble sorting it with sort!()() in D2.056,
so I made my own sort just to be able to
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 20:07:37 Robert Jacques wrote:
StringBuilder in .Net is implemented using lists and doesn't expose
iteration nor indexing; why are we worrying about the indexing and
container performance of D's appender?l
Because we're losing something that we currently have
On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 02:12:20 UTC, Juan Manuel Cabo
wrote:
If we are going to get ideallistic [..]
I'm sorry. I went over the top. I apollogize.
..I won't post for a while.
This thread is almost poping a vein in my neck..
Passion can do that!
I love D. Love all your good work
On Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 02:33:15 UTC, Robert Jacques
wrote:
Nope. See
(https://jshare.johnshopkins.edu/rjacque2/public_html/ )
Any luck in getting the required patches into phobos?
I'd love to see this full thing in there for the next release.
It rox.
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:12:57 -0600, Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 02:33:15 UTC, Robert Jacques
wrote:
Nope. See
(https://jshare.johnshopkins.edu/rjacque2/public_html/ )
Any luck in getting the required patches into phobos?
I'd love to see
On 2/21/12 6:11 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:12:57 -0600, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 02:33:15 UTC, Robert Jacques
wrote:
Nope. See
(https://jshare.johnshopkins.edu/rjacque2/public_html/ )
Any luck in getting the
27 matches
Mail list logo
