On Sunday, 29 January 2017 at 01:06:32 UTC, dminded wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 23:55:58 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 22:18:52 UTC, dminded wrote:
On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 04:48:56 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
This would probably have been a RC or even the fina
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 23:55:58 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 22:18:52 UTC, dminded wrote:
On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 04:48:56 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
This would probably have been a RC or even the final version
if I hadn't to wait for the development platform
On 1/28/2017 3:56 PM, Olivier FAURE wrote:
Let's say I have an arbitrary class 'Container', and I want
a function that stores a pointer to an int in this container, in a way that lets
the function's caller know that the int* given to it will last only as long as
the container, and I want to do it
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 22:31:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It only addresses cases where a reference might be escaped
through a
single return value; it doesn't address escaping through 'out'
parameters,
Yes it does (the general case is storing a value into any data
structure pointed
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 22:18:52 UTC, dminded wrote:
On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 04:48:56 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
This would probably have been a RC or even the final version
if I hadn't to wait for the development platform I use to
reach its next milestone, which may not happen before
On 1/28/2017 6:56 AM, Olivier FAURE wrote:
For what it's worth, here are my problems with 'return scope':
- As far as I can tell, it's not properly documented. The github page for
DIP-1000 is apparently pending a rewrite, and I can't find a formal definition
of 'return scope' anywhere (the D ref
On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 04:48:56 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
This would probably have been a RC or even the final version if
I hadn't to wait for the development platform I use to reach
its next milestone, which may not happen before the next
spring, so another beta is worth.
All important in
On 1/28/2017 3:51 AM, deadalnix wrote:
I did so repeatedly for years and never reached to you or Andrei, so I'm not
sure how that's going to change anything but here you go.
By being specific.
The root problem you are trying to solve is to be able to specify that what
comes out of a function
On Monday, 23 January 2017 at 22:15:57 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Monday, 23 January 2017 at 19:56:33 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
Great! :-)
Keep me in the loop when preparing your slides! ;-)
Glad to help out in any way as well. I might also make it to
FOSDEM myself this year, but that's
On Monday, 23 January 2017 at 19:56:33 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
Keep me in the loop when preparing your slides! ;-)
Thanks for the offer. Expect a version beginning next week. ;-)
Regards,
Kai
New major release of `llvm-d` with some backwards-incompatible
API changes, please
read the release message for the details. Cliffnotes:
- Just `import llvm`
- Remove `LLVM.load`, (dynamically) link against the appropriate
library/libraries
- Set a D version `LLVM_Target_XyZ' for every LLVM targ
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 03:40:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
If you've got a case, make it. If you see problems, explain. If
you want to help, please do.
For what it's worth, here are my problems with 'return scope':
- As far as I can tell, it's not properly documented. The github
page
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 03:40:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
If you've got a case, make it. If you see problems, explain. If
you want to help, please do.
So, do what numerous people have done numerous times already, to
no great effect?
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 at 03:40:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/27/2017 4:43 PM, deadalnix wrote:
I mostly went silent on this because I this point, I have no
idea how to reach
to you and Andrei. This is bad because of all the same reasons
inout is bad,
plus some other on its own, and i
14 matches
Mail list logo
