On Monday, 20 May 2024 at 22:36:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Given last month's successful conversion of a sand pile to an
atomic pile, this #dlang meeting will be about resurrecting the
lost technology of the Atomic Earth Blaster.
Thu May 30 7pm at the Red Robin
2390 148th Ave NE, Redmond,
On Saturday, 25 March 2023 at 09:46:08 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
It's official: DConf '23 is locked in at CodeNode in London,
August 29th - September 1st. And early-bird registration is
open!
https://dconf.org/2023/index.html
From the link above, first sentence:
Join us at CodeNode in London
On Tuesday, 6 December 2022 at 12:13:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
There is now (long overdue) expanded documentation of the
user-facing features of GDC online on GCC's documentation site.
...
This is very much appreciated, especially the SIMD portion.
Thanks.
On Monday, 9 May 2022 at 00:32:33 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 5/8/22 17:25, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> somebody should make a dmd
> fork that introduces write barriers, plus a generational GC
(even if
> it's a toy, proof-of-concept-only implementation) to see if
the
> performance hit is really as bad
Well done Paul. I appreciate the clarity, simplicity and utility.
On Sunday, 14 February 2021 at 17:56:00 UTC, James Lu wrote:
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 16:39:12 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 16:06:31 UTC, James Lu wrote:
[...]
"readable by a beginner" && "interesting and substantial
information" might be hard to find.
On Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 02:28:11 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
SumType is a generic sum type for modern D. It is designed to
be an improved
alternative to `std.variant.Algebraic`.
[...]
Sure looks like a strong advance. Hope it sees a lot of use.
On Saturday, 8 August 2020 at 22:13:57 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
Per the original post in this thread, the current compiler
doesn't convert decimal floating point literals to binary form
correctly in all normal cases. Assuming people actually want
to be correct/consistent to the last bit
On Saturday, 8 August 2020 at 18:16:30 UTC, Avrina wrote:
On Friday, 7 August 2020 at 13:24:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/7/20 8:04 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 7/7/20 7:13 AM, 9il wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 July 2020 at 07:49:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/5/2020 5:46 AM,
On Friday, 31 July 2020 at 13:46:43 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I'm planning to publish several articles and tutorials about D
templates over the next few months. As a means of setting the
stage, I've published this tutorial on the basics.
The blog:
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 03:16:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386323
Many, many thanks to Mike Parker and Andrei Alexandrescu for
their endless hours spent fixing the mess I originally wrote.
Great read. Many thanks for the time spent writing out the
On Saturday, 30 May 2020 at 20:29:37 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 30 May 2020 at 20:14:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 5/30/20 4:02 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
module foo; @safe:
Again, not the same. Read the full thread that you quoted
above.
And even aside from
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 21:38:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 21:18:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The idea is the simple, general rule that:
There's already exceptions to that.
public public void foo() {}
is an error, whereas
public:
public void foo() {}
is not.
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:11:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/29/20 12:53 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
The subject says it all.
If you care about memory safety, I recommending adding `safe:`
as the first line in all your project modules, and annotate
individual functions otherwise as
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 06:55:07 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
On 2020-05-27 06:59:28 +, Bruce Carneal said:
Walter has confirmed that this is indeed the case. As you can
read a few posts up his response to my "What am I missing?"
query was "Nothing at all."
Yes, it's really that bad.
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 05:08:44 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 04:53:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The subject says it all.
If you care about memory safety, I recommending adding `safe:`
as the first line in all your project modules, and annotate
individual functions
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 04:53:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The subject says it all.
If you care about memory safety, I recommending adding `safe:`
as the first line in all your project modules, and annotate
individual functions otherwise as necessary. For modules with C
declarations, do as
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 8:13:52 PM MDT Bruce Carneal via
Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 01:14:43 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> [...]
I remember reading a suggestion that additional linker symb
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 01:14:43 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, May 22, 2020 12:09:16 PM MDT rikki cattermole via
Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
[...]
Except that the linker matters a great deal in this discussion
with regards to extern(D) functions, because @safe and @trusted
On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 01:22:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I have made these points before, but I'll summarize them here
for convenient referral.
[big snip of very long and arguably tangential Java screw-up and
other]
How does this relate to safe by default?
Consider the common (because
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 13:50:25 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 10:46:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
You continue to miss the point.
Additionally, there never was any "working legacy code". As
established, the pre 1080 compiler would have rejected the
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 10:46:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/27/2020 2:34 AM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 09:09:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/26/2020 11:20 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
I'm not at all concerned with legacy non-compiling code of
this nature.
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 02:58:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 5/26/20 12:31 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
Currently a machine checked @safe function calling an
unannotated extern C routine will error out during
compilation. This is great as the C routine was not machine
checked, and
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 05:49:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/26/2020 9:31 AM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
Currently a machine checked @safe function calling an
unannotated extern C routine will error out during
compilation. This is great as the C routine was not machine
checked, and
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 20:38:17 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 16:31:57 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
Currently a machine checked @safe function calling an
unannotated extern C routine will error out during
compilation. This is great as the C routine was not machine
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 18:06:00 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 16:10:24 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:54:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:39:11 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:01:06 UTC,
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 16:20:23 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 16:10:24 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:54:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:39:11 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
[...]
The compiler does not and cannot check
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 16:20:23 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 16:10:24 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:54:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
[...]
Completely agree but my above says nothing about @trusted.
[...]
Another distinction: pre 1028
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:54:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:39:11 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:01:06 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
@safe: the compiler checks
The compiler does not and cannot check inside @trusted. Whether
or not one
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:01:06 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
[snipped an outline of tooling to mitigate 1028 damage]
I think this would be a tool that adds real practical value and
helps to reduce the cost of audits. And not the least,
regarding the current discussion, it diminishes the
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 12:51:59 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 12:28:06 UTC, NaN wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 06:55:31 UTC, Petar Kirov
[ZombineDev] wrote:
[...]
If the greenwashing part was separated and delayed it would
give time to find out if Walters
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 03:37:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/25/2020 7:04 PM, Johannes Loher wrote:
Now let's compare the two different options:
1. With DIP1028 in its current form, the code will compile and
a memory corruption will actually happen. The problem might be
extremely
On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 01:04:24 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 24.05.20 11:10, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/23/2020 11:26 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
I don't believe that you or any other competent programmer
greenwashes safety critical code. Regardless, the safety
conscious must review their
On Sunday, 24 May 2020 at 06:26:56 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
On Sunday, 24 May 2020 at 03:28:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[snip]
3. Un-annotated declarations are easily detectable in a code
review.
Automating this for the transitive closure of defaulted @safe
functions would help. Maybe
On Sunday, 24 May 2020 at 03:28:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I'd like to emphasize:
1. It is not possible for the compiler to check any
declarations where the implementation is not available. Not in
D, not in any language. Declaring a declaration safe does not
make it safe.
Agree
On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 14:37:04 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
I think the source of the problem is that Walter's DIPs require
the community to prove that Walter's proposal is so bad that he
needs to reject it. Anyone else's proposal has to prove that
it's worthy of being added to the language.
On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 13:57:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 12:47:04 UTC, matheus wrote:
As an end user, I'd like to know if this language will be
guided by community or one person, because it seems the
"democracy" is very shallow right now.
And again why waste
On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 01:22:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I have made these points before, but I'll summarize them here
for convenient referral.
of material indicating, among other things, that even
really good programmers can screw up when it comes to language
design now and then.
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:32:32 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:14:02 UTC, Seb wrote:
Why we can't we have a technical board where the community can
vote in experts and potentially companies could even buy a
seat for $$$ which would mean a lot more for them than
39 matches
Mail list logo
