On Friday, 12 February 2021 at 12:17:13 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 03:05:10 UTC, frame wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
Would maki
On Friday, 12 February 2021 at 19:48:01 UTC, vitamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 at 16:25:44 UTC, Petar Kirov
[ZombineDev] wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 at 13:44:53 UTC, vit wrote:
[...]
TL;DR Yes, you can, but it depends on what "without problem"
means for you :P
[...]
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 at 16:25:44 UTC, Petar Kirov
[ZombineDev] wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 at 13:44:53 UTC, vit wrote:
[...]
TL;DR Yes, you can, but it depends on what "without problem"
means for you :P
[...]
Thanks,
Yes, I am implementing container (ref counted point
On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 03:05:10 UTC, frame wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
Would making
`new T[]` inject a call to `GC.addRange` based on `T` (and ma
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 at 16:25:44 UTC, Petar Kirov
[ZombineDev] wrote:
[..]
A few practical examples:
Here it is deemed that the only observable side-effect of
`malloc` and friends is the setting of `errno` in case of
failure, so these wrappers ensure that this is not observed.
Sur
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 at 13:44:53 UTC, vit wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 at 12:17:43 UTC, rm wrote:
On 09/02/2021 5:05, frame wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRang
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 at 12:17:43 UTC, rm wrote:
On 09/02/2021 5:05, frame wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
Does 'new' violate the 'pure' paradigm? P
On 09/02/2021 5:05, frame wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling GC.addRange
or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
Does 'new' violate the 'pure' paradigm? Pure functions can only call
pure functions and GC.addRange
On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 21:00:39 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 19:53:27 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
pure is broken. Just don't [use it]
Allowing memory allocation in pure code in a language that can
distinguish between pointer equality and value equality is,
let's sa
On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 20:50:12 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 19:53:27 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
pure i
On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 19:53:27 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
pure is broken. Just don't [use it]
[Citation needed]
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
pure is broken. Just don't [use it]
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 14:13:18 UTC, vitamin wrote:
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
Does 'new' violate the 'pure' paradigm? Pure functions can only
call pure functions and GC.addRange or GC.removeRange is only
'nothr
Why using 'new' is allowed in pure functions but calling
GC.addRange or GC.removeRange isn't allowed?
14 matches
Mail list logo
