(Moved from: What have I missed?)
If this is the wrong place to ask these questions I apologize,
getting back into this takes some work.
So I guess I need to ask: Should I try to resume work on the
BitManip library? (So far it seems none of my code has been
integrated to phobos)
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 01:10:06AM +, Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
(Moved from: What have I missed?)
If this is the wrong place to ask these questions I apologize,
getting back into this takes some work.
Since this is about contributing to Phobos, probably a better
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 01:51:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Since this is about contributing to Phobos, probably a better
place to ask is on the main D forum.
Yeah posted in my 'what have i missed?' as well...
Do you have a pull request? Which one is it?
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 02:04:13 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 01:51:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Do you have a pull request? Which one is it?
https://github.com/rtcvb32/phobos/pull/1
From the looks of things it's 4 commits that are merged
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 02:04:12AM +, Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 01:51:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Since this is about contributing to Phobos, probably a better place to ask
is on the main D forum.
Yeah posted in my
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 02:12:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Hold on a sec... that's a pull for your own fork of Phobos. You
need to submit a pull to the main Phobos repo in order to get
it reviewed and merged. :-)
Well, no wonder, your pull was submitted against
On 29/07/12 23:36, bearophile wrote:
Era Scarecrow:
Another commonly needed operation is a very fast bit count. There
are very refined algorithms to do this.
Likely similar to the hamming weight table mentioned in TDPL.
Combined with the canUseBulk I think I could make it fairly fast.
On 29-Jul-12 03:16, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 23:02:17 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 29-Jul-12 02:31, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 22:19:05 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Mhm? Not getting you it at all. What's locking it ?
What's wrong with:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 06:27:32 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
OK. Now back to the biggest question:
Slices use references (sometimes) to previous bitarray. Since
it's a slice (like an array) this could be expected.
The sometimes part is not god enough! The problem is that
small string
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 06:27:32 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Thus BitArray either becomes value type (that may come as
unexpected, see your option c/d). Or it becomes full reference
type as in option a (though it sucks). Sorry but b is no go, as
it makes code unpredictable I'd rather take
On 29-Jul-12 12:55, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 06:27:32 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Thus BitArray either becomes value type (that may come as unexpected,
see your option c/d). Or it becomes full reference type as in option a
(though it sucks). Sorry but b is no go, as it
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 09:03:08 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 29-Jul-12 12:55, Era Scarecrow wrote:
Doing it this way the arguments being passed as reference
slices would ensure unneeded copies wouldn't be made. On the
other hand a smaller portion of the code would need to be
updated.
On 29-Jul-12 13:18, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 09:03:08 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 29-Jul-12 12:55, Era Scarecrow wrote:
Doing it this way the arguments being passed as reference slices
would ensure unneeded copies wouldn't be made. On the other hand a
smaller portion
On 29-Jul-12 14:28, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 09:30:06 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I have simpler suggestion. Maybe doing it as 2 containers:
BitSet is a plain value type with small array optimization (what you
called BitArray in last 2 posts) and no slicing (only as
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 10:34:50 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Might be a third option: A template struct that represents a
BitArray type (with 90% of the code); you then insert a
structure with key functions that would handle the
value/reference duplication part.
Sounds a lot like
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 09:30:06 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I have simpler suggestion. Maybe doing it as 2 containers:
BitSet is a plain value type with small array optimization
(what you called BitArray in last 2 posts) and no slicing (only
as opSlice() I.e. as a whole). Best used for
Era Scarecrow:
As you guess I have had to use many arrays of bits in my programs
:-)
4124 - Set/reset all bits ie:
BitArray ba = BitArray(100);
ba[] = true;
Others haven't been done yet.
Among those 4124 suggestions the most important, and very simple
to implement, are:
- set n-th
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 14:41:48 UTC, bearophile wrote:
As you guess I have had to use many arrays of bits in my
programs :-)
I'll do what I can :)
4124 - Set/reset all bits ie:
BitArray ba = BitArray(100);
ba[] = true;
Others haven't been done yet.
Among those 4124 suggestions the
BitFields:
https://github.com/rtcvb32/phobos/commit/729c96e2f20ddd0c05a1afb488030b5c4db3e012
new BitArray Overhead functions/templates:
https://github.com/rtcvb32/phobos/commit/55aaf82a39f3901f03f5f1ac26fd175c5b2cd167
BitArray:
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 22:41:48 Era Scarecrow wrote:
2) opCast disabled: Anyone using opCast their code will break,
however depending on it's usage that may not be an issue. If
anyone can recommend alternative opCast(s) that won't prevent
normal use of casting, then they will be
On 29-Jul-12 00:41, Era Scarecrow wrote:
BitFields:
https://github.com/rtcvb32/phobos/commit/729c96e2f20ddd0c05a1afb488030b5c4db3e012
new BitArray Overhead functions/templates:
https://github.com/rtcvb32/phobos/commit/55aaf82a39f3901f03f5f1ac26fd175c5b2cd167
BitArray:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 00:58:59 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
My solution is make slices different type e.g. BitSlice.
It's always reference to the original BitArray. Array itself still can
be either compact or not. All operations with slice go to array (and
still check if they can use
On 29-Jul-12 01:07, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 00:58:59 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
My solution is make slices different type e.g. BitSlice.
It's always reference to the original BitArray. Array itself still can
be either compact or not. All operations with slice go to array
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 20:59:15 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Great! But I strongly suggest to repost it in d.D newsgroup as
it has wider audience and is more appropriate for reviews.
I was thinking of not bothering Andrei or Walter while i fixed
other issues on it before bringing more
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:07:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I would point out that while hasSlicing doesn't currently check
for it, if opSlice doesn't return a type which is assignable to
the original range, it won't work in a lot of Phobos functions.
I keep meaning to bring that up for
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 01:19:49 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 29-Jul-12 01:07, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 00:58:59 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
My solution is make slices different type e.g. BitSlice.
It's always reference to the original BitArray. Array itself still can
On 29-Jul-12 01:20, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 20:59:15 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Great! But I strongly suggest to repost it in d.D newsgroup as it has
wider audience and is more appropriate for reviews.
I was thinking of not bothering Andrei or Walter while i
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 23:23:30 Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:07:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I would point out that while hasSlicing doesn't currently check
for it, if opSlice doesn't return a type which is assignable to
the original range, it won't work in a
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:30:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well, it seems that my comment was somewhat misplaced in that
BitArray isn't a range but a container. My comment was directed
at opSlice on ranges. Container types should return whatever
range type is appropriate. That will
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:39:56 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
BitArray (Ie const(int)) it's otherwise should not be
My filter/formatter got me again...
Honestly that doesn't add up to what I call an 'array'. It
should look like an array, act like an array, and besides not
being able to
On 29-Jul-12 01:39, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:30:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well, it seems that my comment was somewhat misplaced in that BitArray
isn't a range but a container. My comment was directed at opSlice on
ranges. Container types should return whatever
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:49:45 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 29-Jul-12 01:39, Era Scarecrow wrote:
An array suggests you can control the size of the array,
however if you are forced to work in 32increments (or more if
64bit), that makes it highly hard to control without making it
a
On 29-Jul-12 02:08, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:49:45 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 29-Jul-12 01:39, Era Scarecrow wrote:
An array suggests you can control the size of the array, however if
you are forced to work in 32increments (or more if 64bit), that makes
it
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 22:19:05 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Mhm? Not getting you it at all. What's locking it ?
What's wrong with:
struct BitArray
{
union {
struct {
size_t[] data;
ulong length; //in bits
//length in words would be just
//
Era Scarecrow:
BitFields:
I've concentrated on adding default values.
Good, that's useful.
Regarding BitArray I have written some ER:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4123
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4124
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4717
On 29-Jul-12 02:31, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 22:19:05 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Mhm? Not getting you it at all. What's locking it ?
What's wrong with:
struct BitArray
{
union {
struct {
size_t[] data;
ulong length;//in bits
//length in
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 23:02:17 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 29-Jul-12 02:31, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 22:19:05 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
Mhm? Not getting you it at all. What's locking it ?
What's wrong with:
struct BitArray
{
union {
struct {
37 matches
Mail list logo
