On 2/25/20 2:40 PM, uranuz wrote:
Seems that I managed to slightly reduce the problemme. I suspect that
error is somehow connected with running my code inside TaskPool:
https://dlang.org/library/std/parallelism/task_pool.html
`Memory allocation failed` error occurs when I throw any exception
Seems that I managed to slightly reduce the problemme. I suspect
that error is somehow connected with running my code inside
TaskPool:
https://dlang.org/library/std/parallelism/task_pool.html
`Memory allocation failed` error occurs when I throw any
exception even trivial one:
throw new
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:54:34PM -0800, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
> Writing that an implementation must refer to specific templates
> implies that the behavior is customizable by the user via modifying
> those templates.
I think this is where the misunderstanding
On 2/25/20 10:13 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 13:39:40 UTC, Aliak wrote:
I should’ve been more specific I was wondering if the same could be
achieved without a introducing a new aggregate type!
Well, compiler magic, possibly with more @attributes. But that gets
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 13:39:40 UTC, Aliak wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 13:04:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 09:36:25 UTC, aliak wrote:
[...]
Yes, that is the key impetus of our amendment, which I also
wrote up on a gist weeks ago and it
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 13:39:40 UTC, Aliak wrote:
I should’ve been more specific I was wondering if the same
could be achieved without a introducing a new aggregate type!
Well, compiler magic, possibly with more @attributes. But that
gets far messier than a simple struct, so we
On 2/25/20 8:39 AM, Aliak wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 13:04:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 09:36:25 UTC, aliak wrote:
[...]
Yes, that is the key impetus of our amendment, which I also wrote up
on a gist weeks ago and it is now on github too!
On 2/25/20 1:54 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/24/2020 2:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
My inference of the discussion about this in the n.g. was the
templates would be used so users could customize the behavior to be
whatever they wanted.
By accepting a different type from string. In
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 13:39:40 UTC, Aliak wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 13:04:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 09:36:25 UTC, aliak wrote:
[...]
Yes, that is the key impetus of our amendment, which I also
wrote up on a gist weeks ago and it
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 13:04:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 09:36:25 UTC, aliak wrote:
[...]
Yes, that is the key impetus of our amendment, which I also
wrote up on a gist weeks ago and it is now on github too!
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 09:36:25 UTC, aliak wrote:
This may have already been answered in the other threads, but I
was just wondering if anyone managed to propose a way to avoid
this scenario with DIP1027?
Yes, that is the key impetus of our amendment, which I also wrote
up on a gist
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 07:07:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
All DIP1027 did was turn an istring into a tuple. That's it.
The user can then do whatever they want with the tuple,
including overloading a custom function based on the tuple
arguments. DIP1027 did not actually do ANY
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 20:28:20 UTC, Ben Jones wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 19:15:13 UTC, JN wrote:
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 at 16:20:09 UTC, Ahmet Sait wrote:
Out of curiosity, why would you need to triangulate polygons
instead of using stencil buffer? I'm assuming you're
13 matches
Mail list logo
