On Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 21:26:28 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Should this be on the announce forum?
No it shouldn't. But by the time I realized it was, the
discussion was well underway.
On Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 21:42:55 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 January 2021 at 09:21:53 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/c06ce7f144b3dabf363d1896ddcd31a2a6b7c969/DIPs/DIP1039.md
A bit off topic: Would Kenji Hara still have been an active
Dlang
On 1/6/2021 1:31 AM, 9il wrote:
> [...]
This is the same problem as https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21526
It has been provided in the thread
https://forum.dlang.org/post/gqzdiicrvtlicurxy...@forum.dlang.org
In general, I strongly reiterate that posting bugs to the n.g. means they
On 1/6/2021 4:26 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2021-01-06 03:30, Walter Bright wrote:
The baseline Linux target does not have SSE.
Other compilers solve this by having a flag to specify the minimum target CPU.
DMD has flags for that, too.
On 12/23/20 10:05 AM, 9il wrote:
> It was a mockery executed by Atila
For those who read the above comment but do not want to read the rest of
this long thread, the linked PR discussion does not contain mockery:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/9778#issuecomment-498700369
Ali
On Wednesday, 6 January 2021 at 09:21:53 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/c06ce7f144b3dabf363d1896ddcd31a2a6b7c969/DIPs/DIP1039.md
A bit off topic: Would Kenji Hara still have been an active Dlang
community member if his solution to DIP-1039 hadn't been reverted.
On 1/6/21 4:21 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
This is the discussion thread for the first round of Community Review of
DIP 1039, "Static Arrays with Inferred Length":
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/c06ce7f144b3dabf363d1896ddcd31a2a6b7c969/DIPs/DIP1039.md
The review period will end at 11:59 PM
On 1/6/21 1:14 PM, Luhrel wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 January 2021 at 17:59:57 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2021-01-06 10:21, Mike Parker wrote:
This is the discussion thread for the first round of Community Review
of DIP 1039, "Static Arrays with Inferred Length":
On Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 15:27:09 UTC, Dukc wrote:
On Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 13:03:54 UTC, Luhrel wrote:
2. if staticArrFunc returns a size_t, then the problem can be
simplified as:
```
staticArrFunc(cast(int[$])[1,2,3]); // no need to cast :
staticArrFunc([1,2,3]); // already works
On Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 13:03:54 UTC, Luhrel wrote:
I don't get it.
1. `y` should be a int[].
True - see my correction at the feedback theard.
2. if staticArrFunc returns a size_t, then the problem can be
simplified as:
```
staticArrFunc(cast(int[$])[1,2,3]); // no need to cast :
On Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 13:03:54 UTC, Luhrel wrote:
I think that `int[$] a = [1, 2, 3]` is much more user-friendly.
```
auto a = [1,2,3].staticArray!ubyte
```
But what prevents you from writing your own library solution that
works like this?
auto ints = mkarray(1,2,3,4,5);
auto
On Wednesday, 6 January 2021 at 18:22:32 UTC, Nick Treleaven
wrote:
From the feedback thread:
On Wednesday, 6 January 2021 at 17:54:34 UTC, Dukc wrote:
`std.array.staticArray` can already handle most of the
problems described, and it does work in betterC - I just
tested with LDC 1.20.1
12 matches
Mail list logo
