On 1/5/2021 9:57 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily say occasional accidental correctness is the only
upside, you also get better performance and simpler code generation on the
deprecated x87. I don't see any further upsides though, and for me, it's a
terrible trade-off,
On 06.01.21 03:27, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/5/2021 5:30 AM, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
It would be nice if no excess precision was ever used. It can
sometimes gives a false sense of correctness. It has no upside except
accidental correctness that can break when compiled for a different
On 1/5/2021 2:42 AM, 9il wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 09:47:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/4/2021 11:22 PM, 9il wrote:
I can't reproduce the same DMD output as you.
I did it on Windows 32 bit. I tried it on Linux 32, which does indeed show the
behavior you mentioned. At the
On 1/5/2021 5:30 AM, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
It would be nice if no excess precision was ever used. It can sometimes gives a
false sense of correctness. It has no upside except accidental correctness that
can break when compiled for a different platform.
That same argument could be use to
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 21:46:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 21:43:09 UTC, welkam wrote:
Replace alias Bar(T) = Foo!T; with alias Bar = Foo;
struct Foo(T) {}
alias Bar = Foo;
void f(T)(Bar!T x) {}
void main() {
auto foo = Bar!int();
f(foo);
}
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 21:42:49 UTC, Murilo wrote:
On Saturday, 2 January 2021 at 22:49:19 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Saturday, 2 January 2021 at 04:12:29 UTC, Murilo wrote:
Here is the link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Il1xLN8b5rzghYLXTQqq2apv5YMKv7rx/view?usp=sharing
I
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 21:46:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
It is very useful to create a simple alias from a complex type
for export from a type library, then it breaks when people use
that type library to write templated functions.
People do this all the time in C++.
Example:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 21:43:09 UTC, welkam wrote:
Replace alias Bar(T) = Foo!T; with alias Bar = Foo;
struct Foo(T) {}
alias Bar = Foo;
void f(T)(Bar!T x) {}
void main() {
auto foo = Bar!int();
f(foo);
}
The example was a reduced case. One can trivially construct
examples
On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 22:13:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
The big picture that the DIP suggested was that when stuff like
this fails to compile:
struct Foo(T) {}
alias Bar(T) = Foo!T;
void f(T)(Bar!T x) {}
void main() {
auto foo = Bar!int();
f(foo);
}
On Saturday, 2 January 2021 at 22:49:19 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Saturday, 2 January 2021 at 04:12:29 UTC, Murilo wrote:
Here is the link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Il1xLN8b5rzghYLXTQqq2apv5YMKv7rx/view?usp=sharing
I can't pass the first screen with a static photo and music.
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 21:03:40 UTC, welkam wrote:
This code compiles
struct bar(T) {}
void f(T)(bar!T x) {}
void main()
{
alias fooInt = bar!int;
alias foo = bar;
assert(is(fooInt == bar!int));
assert(is(foo!int == bar!int));
assert(is(fooInt == foo!int));
}
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 15:10:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 15:04:34 UTC, welkam wrote:
Also how "i'm like you" is an insult?
I don't think I should reply to this…
Then dont replay to this sentence. My post had more than one
sentence.
Also the
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 18:48:06 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 18:06:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
My main concern is that we need to attract more people with a
strong comp.sci. background because as a language grow it
becomes more tricky to improve and the most
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 18:06:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
My main concern is that we need to attract more people with a
strong comp.sci. background because as a language grow it
becomes more tricky to improve and the most difficult topics
are the ones that remain unresolved (like
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 17:13:01 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
Sure. I've said in my first post in this thread that "issue
1807 is well worth fixing/implementing".
Ok, if we have a majority for this, then all is good.
A program has a bug when it doesn't behave as intended by its
author. I think
On 05.01.21 11:44, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
So, does that mean that you agree that having better unification would
be a worthwhile item to have on a wish list for 2021? So, if somebody
want to do a full implementation that performs well, then it would be an
interesting option?
Sure. I've
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 15:04:34 UTC, welkam wrote:
Also how "i'm like you" is an insult?
I don't think I should reply to this…
On Monday, 4 January 2021 at 22:55:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
It is a name, e.g.:
alias BarInt = Bar!int;
"BarInt", "Bar!int" and "Foo!int" are all names, or labels, if
you wish. And they all refer to the same object: the nominal
type. Which you can test easily by using
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 13:30:50 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 09:47:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The only D compiler that uses excess precision is DMD and
only if -O flag is passed. The same example compiled with GDC
uses write-read codes. LDC uses SSE
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 09:47:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The only D compiler that uses excess precision is DMD and only
if -O flag is passed. The same example compiled with GDC uses
write-read codes. LDC uses SSE codes.
DMD still supports baseline 32 bit Windows that does not have
On Monday, 4 January 2021 at 01:19:12 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Sunday, 3 January 2021 at 20:31:41 UTC, welkam wrote:
[snip]
[snip[
Regardless, the DIP likely could have been improved by
mentioning its inclusion in C++ 11 (and perhaps focused a bit
less on implementation).
Yes.
On Monday, 4 January 2021 at 17:48:50 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
I think you're hitting the nail on the head here regarding the
confusion. Such a rewrite makes intuitive sense, and it would
be nice, but it doesn't happen.
So, does that mean that you agree that having better unification
would be a
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 09:47:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/4/2021 11:22 PM, 9il wrote:
I can't reproduce the same DMD output as you.
I did it on Windows 32 bit. I tried it on Linux 32, which does
indeed show the behavior you mentioned. At the moment I don't
know why the different
On 1/4/2021 11:22 PM, 9il wrote:
I can't reproduce the same DMD output as you.
I did it on Windows 32 bit. I tried it on Linux 32, which does indeed show the
behavior you mentioned. At the moment I don't know why the different behaviors.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21526
It
24 matches
Mail list logo
