On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:44:22 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, there is no cure for poor skills, but the point is to
prevent the need to avoid recursion to ensure there are no
stack overflows. It seems reasonable considering D targets
systems programming.
i see "system programmer" as so
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:47:47 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:29:43 UTC, A.B wrote:
Get fucked by yourself asshole ! Your penance is that you'll
have to review all the crappy DIPs that will come on GH until
your death, now that anyone can post his fantastic idea ea
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:59:21 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:44:22 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, there is no cure for poor skills, but the point is to
prevent the need to avoid recursion to ensure there are no
stack overflows. It seems reasonable considering D targets
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 07:30:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
If attributes look messy, pragma can be used.
It may look as an addition with little gain, but one of the
reasons of compiling is to prevent runtime errors as early as
possible and this seeks exactly that.
then TCO should be add
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 07:43:14 UTC, ketmar wrote:
we already has one optimization case speced -- NRVO. and it is
BAD. adding another implementation detail to the spec will only
worsen the situation, i believe.
We have other cases cases where optimization is expected but it
is poorly sp
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:39:06 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:37:18 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:20:59 UTC, Seb wrote:
... guys, please stay friendly, constructive and polite! I
thought we are all grown-ups here!
i do. someone who is not able to unde
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:05:46 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Your joking right? No personal attacks?
where do you see personal attack in my words? i'm not saying that
OP is dumb, and i'm not saying that his proposal is dumb. but it
is *aimed* to dumb people (which doesn't automatically makes it
On 07/10/2016 08:39 AM, ketmar wrote:
note that i didn't said this about OP, in no way. so no personal attacks
here.
It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature would
make use of it. You called those who would use it "brain-damaged".
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:24:58 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 07/10/2016 08:39 AM, ketmar wrote:
note that i didn't said this about OP, in no way. so no
personal attacks
here.
It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature
would make use of it. You called those who would use i
On 07/10/2016 11:30 AM, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:24:58 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
[...]
It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature would
make use of it. You called those who would use it "brain-damaged".
i am not responsible for people's assumptions.
So whe
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:46:24 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
So when one makes a post here saying that "D is aimed at
brain-dead people", we shouldn't take that for an insult.
absolutely. but "D is crap" is whole different story.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:20:07 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:05:46 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Your joking right? No personal attacks?
where do you see personal attack in my words? i'm not saying
that OP is dumb, and i'm not saying that his proposal is dumb.
but it is *aim
On 07/10/2016 12:21 PM, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:46:24 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
So when one makes a post here saying that "D is aimed at brain-dead
people", we shouldn't take that for an insult.
absolutely. but "D is crap" is whole different story.
Your quote leaves out the "b
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
The proposal
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 10:50:20 UTC, "Smoke" Adams wrote:
You are not
i am.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 11:17:17 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
Your quote leaves out the "because" part, which is the
interesting part.
because it is irrelevant.
Btw here's a thread from 2014 that touches on the idea of a
"tailrec" annotation. At the time, Walter viewed the optimization
as the compiler's business and not something he'd elevate to a
language feature:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/lqp6pu$1kkv$1...@digitalmars.com
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 12:01:54 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement i
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
Why should it
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:17:08 UTC, ketmar wrote:
your DIP is aimed for is brain-damaged coders who are not able
to understand how programs work (and why "scope(exit)" may
prevent TCO). it won't help anyone. sorry.
This is really unacceptablely rude. Step away from the computer
and cool
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 16:52:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
@tco does not bring any guarantees to the caller, so you might
as well annotate the call-site with some compiler specific
feature.
actually, annotating the call itself seems to have alot more
sense judging from described OP i
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 16:52:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implem
On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 18:04:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It seems to me six months is a sweet spot. Large companies such
as Google and Facebook also use a six-months horizon because
it's long enough to avoid micromanagement hysteria and short
enough to be verifiable and accountable. Y
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:10:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Annotating every callsite seems uncomfortable, being able to
perform TCO is a property of the function and not something
that might look call-site dependant.
You only need to annotate the location where the function calls
itself.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:16:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:10:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Annotating every callsite seems uncomfortable, being able to
perform TCO is a property of the function and not something
that might look call-site dependant.
You
On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 20:43:58 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On 07/08/2016 11:22 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 09:13:08 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
What would be the use-case for those? Using newer dub
versions with an older compiler?
Or simply using dub with ldc/gdb without also i
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:32:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
It might be interesting to have proof that the stack is bounded
(and won't overflow).
Yes, a stack depth guarantee would be useful for D fibers.
On 2016-07-10 19:09, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
Yes if anybody had access to the trello and would want to use yet
another tool. I think that is unrealistic.
Trello is already used: https://trello.com/dlang
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2016-07-08 22:43, Martin Nowak wrote:
That actually indicates that shipping dub with dmd isn't that useful.
I think it's very useful, if nothing else to increase the awareness of
Dub. Doesn't hurt to have a separate binary as well.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
link: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/9
file:
https://github.com/Superstar64/DIPs/blob/exception_extensions/DIPs/DIP1001.md
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 19:55:37 UTC, Superstar64 wrote:
link: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/9
file:
https://github.com/Superstar64/DIPs/blob/exception_extensions/DIPs/DIP1001.md
You don't have to use gc-allocated exceptions anyway.
Allowing to throw any type makes chaining impossible.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 19:55:37 UTC, Superstar64 wrote:
link: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/9
file:
https://github.com/Superstar64/DIPs/blob/exception_extensions/DIPs/DIP1001.md
Adding another attribute to the language and having the compiler
do magic behind the scenes?
No thanks.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 19:55:37 +, Superstar64 wrote:
> link: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/9 file:
> https://github.com/Superstar64/DIPs/blob/exception_extensions/DIPs/
DIP1001.md
So if my function calls any runtime functions -- it allocates memory,
slices an array, etc -- I can't use C-s
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 20:30:56 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 19:55:37 UTC, Superstar64 wrote:
link: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/9
file:
https://github.com/Superstar64/DIPs/blob/exception_extensions/DIPs/DIP1001.md
You don't have to use gc-allocated exceptions
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 19:55:37 UTC, Superstar64 wrote:
link: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/9
file:
https://github.com/Superstar64/DIPs/blob/exception_extensions/DIPs/DIP1001.md
I'm not convinced by this proposal. Here are some early thoughts:
1) Wouldn't a library solution based on
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 21:43:08 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 19:55:37 +, Superstar64 wrote:
link: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/9 file:
https://github.com/Superstar64/DIPs/blob/exception_extensions/DIPs/
DIP1001.md
So if my function calls any runtime functions --
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 21:52:37 UTC, Lodovico Giaretta wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 19:55:37 UTC, Superstar64 wrote:
link: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/9
file:
https://github.com/Superstar64/DIPs/blob/exception_extensions/DIPs/DIP1001.md
I'm not convinced by this proposal. Here
37 matches
Mail list logo
