Same for me. It just crashes while loading. The debug version is more
informative. It says:
Error: CompileError : Cannot compile data/shaders/glow.fs
LOG :
(1) : error C5018: length of constructed vectors cannot exceed 4
These three lines are not in log.txt, but everything else is.
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I like how you leave no stone unturned. Regardless of what the final quality
of the D2 language will be, I will always think you have done your best to
improve it. I will say so to the people I know too.
I have already discussed about D AAs in the past, but I guess it was
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Rainer Deyke wrote:
The expression may mutate stuff.
It shouldn't. It's an error if it does, just like it's an error for an
assertion or post/precondition to have any side effects.
It would be nice if the compiler could catch this error, but failing
that, 'old'
language_fan wrote:
It would be great if the underlying implementation could be switched
based on the task at hand. The AAs could be completely library provided,
with only a small built-in syntactical sugaring on top of it.
They already are. In D1, the complete implementation is in
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:47:21 +0200, grauzone n...@example.net wrote:
Max Samukha wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:28:51 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Associative arrays are today quite problematic because they don't offer
any true iteration. Furthermore, the
Walter Bright:
You can iterate over both keys and values with:
foreach (key, value; aa)
I know this, of course, but you are missing the point by a mile. An explicit
foreach is not the only way you may want to iterate an AA on.
If I have a higher order function like map, I must be able
Max Samukha:
I agree. But the problem is the lack of a decent way to instantiate an
empty AA. Now you either have to do idiotic things like:
int[int] a;
a[1] = 1;
a.remove(1);
Or wrap the array in another type.
This is an empty AA, you need nothing else:
int[int] a;
In my post I have
bearophile:
That you can use for example like this, to give an empty AA to a foo()
function:
foo(AA!(int, float));
I have just found that you can also use null there. It's less explicit
because if you take a look at the call site only, you don't know that the
receiver will need an AA.
bearophile Wrote:
I'd really like the default iteration on an AA to yield its keys, instead
of values as currently done. Because if I have a key I can find its value,
while the opposite is not possible, so having keys is much more useful. This
is true in Python too. In my dlibs all
Eric Suen wrote:
Because of many programming language is not design for speed, there is
no point to write a compiler in there native language. Even Java's compiler
is writtern in Java, why not D? Compiler bootstrapping is very basic
technique,
Doing this would make it more difficult than
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:29:57 -0400, bearophile
bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Max Samukha:
I agree. But the problem is the lack of a decent way to instantiate an
empty AA. Now you either have to do idiotic things like:
int[int] a;
a[1] = 1;
a.remove(1);
Or wrap the array in another
I use bud build the dwt.lib. then use dmd -L+dwt.lib build the execute file.
it is much fast then other ways.
the problem is , the execute file size is become very big since dmd 1.41 .
I try dwt-win and dwt Shawn Liu , the execute file size is both grow big.
I try dmd 1.035 to dmd 1.041,
Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:56:44 -0400, Just Visiting thusly wrote:
I won't deny that for certain people 32-bit systems are still perfectly
useful. Just my clients do not share this view for a series of good
reasons. Even their older systems tend to be 64-bit nowadays. Migration
towards 64-bit OSes
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I like how you leave no stone unturned. Regardless of what the
final quality of the D2 language will be, I will always think you
have done your best to improve it. I will say so to the people I know
too.
Well it should be said Walter is doing his best
I use dmd 1.049 , dmd 1.050, dmd r215 to build dwt-win static lib.
dmd @AllFiles.txt -d -ofdwt.lib -lib -op -JE:\dmd\gui\res
there is a error throw out by dmd:
internal\ole\win32\COM.d(378): Error: long has no effect in expression (0)
it repeat 5 times.
the problem is , the line content is
dwt_test дµ½:
I use bud build the dwt.lib. then use dmd -L+dwt.lib build the execute
file. it is much fast then other ways.
the problem is , the execute file size is become very big since dmd 1.41 .
I try dwt-win and dwt Shawn Liu , the execute file size is both grow big.
I try dmd
Piotrek:
No! No! No! Maybe you are wrong.
Life is complex so I am usually wrong, because it's hard to consider all sides
of a thing, but sometimes other people are even more wrong :-)
I remember that I spent many hours on finding bug in python's script written
by me in my job. The reason was
On 2009-10-18 11:32:07 +0200, language_fan f...@bar.com.invalid said:
Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:56:44 -0400, Just Visiting thusly wrote:
I won't deny that for certain people 32-bit systems are still perfectly
useful. Just my clients do not share this view for a series of good
reasons. Even their
Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:18:34 -0400, bearophile wrote:
Then I couldn't understand why the hell iterating on collection
returns a key in the first place. It's so not intuitive.
What's intuitive on iterating on values? Well, I think Walter agrees
with you, I remember his explanation (iterating on
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I'm not sure whether much or any of this is attainable within D2.
The things I've written about aren't all equally important and they don't
require the same amount of work to be implemented. I am sorry for writing that
gazpacho.
There are two things that I think are more
Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:35:53 +0200, Fawzi Mohamed thusly wrote:
On 2009-10-18 11:32:07 +0200, language_fan f...@bar.com.invalid said:
Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:56:44 -0400, Just Visiting thusly wrote:
I won't deny that for certain people 32-bit systems are still
perfectly useful. Just my clients
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
The opEquals among AAs requires probably less than 20 lines of code.
Two persons (plus Walter, of course) have said they don't like to iterate on
the keys first. The other people have kept muzzle shut so I can't tell
Robert Jacques дµ½:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:31:56 -0400, dolive doliv...@sina.com wrote:
Robert Jacques ôµ½:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:21:55 -0400, dolive doliv...@sina.com wrote:
Robert Jacques Ã�ôõÃÂ#65533;
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:22:57 -0400, dolive89
bearophile pisze:
Piotrek:
No! No! No! Maybe you are wrong.
Life is complex so I am usually wrong, because it's hard to consider all sides
of a thing, but sometimes other people are even more wrong :-)
I didn't mean to be offensive. All people (including me) have tendency
to claim that
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I'm not sure whether much or any of this is attainable within D2.
The things I've written about aren't all equally important and they
don't require the same amount of work to be implemented. I am sorry
for writing that gazpacho. There are two things
Bill Baxter pisze:
I think the default should be to iterate over whatever 'in' looks at.
I was almost convinced, because that rule has a sense. But treating
normal arrays and associative array has more sense to me.
fun (SomeObject object) {
foreach (element;object.arr1){ //normal, but how
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Piotrek star...@tlen.pl wrote:
Bill Baxter pisze:
I think the default should be to iterate over whatever 'in' looks at.
I was almost convinced, because that rule has a sense. But treating normal
arrays and associative array has more sense to me.
fun
Why I mentioned desktop applications is that currently the trend has been
to replace old 32-bit intel/amd processors in desktop use. And most
desktop apps are written in systems programming languages. You can hardly
buy any non-64-bit capable processor from any pc store these days. The
people are
Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:45:39 -0600, Stanley Steel thusly wrote:
Why I mentioned desktop applications is that currently the trend has
been to replace old 32-bit intel/amd processors in desktop use. And
most desktop apps are written in systems programming languages. You can
hardly buy any
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing T[]
to a function and then the function resizes the T[]. What happens with
the original?
The solution we came up with was to create a third array type, T[new],
which was a reference type.
Andrei had the idea that T[new]
Walter Bright:
Andrei had the idea that T[new] could be dispensed with by making a
builder library type to handle creating arrays by doing things like
appending, and then delivering a finished T[] type. This is similar to
what std.outbuffer and std.array.Appender do, they just need a bit
Piotrek wrote:
bearophile Wrote:
I'd really like the default iteration on an AA to yield its keys, instead of
values as currently done. Because if I have a key I can find its value, while the
opposite is not possible, so having keys is much more useful. This is true in Python too.
In my
Bill Baxter:
It shouldn't be harder to port D1 code to D2 than C code!
In the world for every line of D1 code you may want to port to D2, there are
probably 100 or 1000+ lines of C code that you may want to port to D2, so the
situation is not the same. Keeping compatibility with C is far more
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:05:39 +0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing T[]
to a function and then the function resizes the T[]. What happens with
the original?
The solution we came up with was to create a
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:37:36 +0400, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com
wrote:
Bill Baxter:
It shouldn't be harder to port D1 code to D2 than C code!
In the world for every line of D1 code you may want to port to D2, there
are probably 100 or 1000+ lines of C code that you may want to
grauzone:
In a perfect world, iterating over an AA would yield a tuple (key,
value). You could iterate over either the keys or values by iterating
over a view on the key or value list. I'm surprised Python doesn't do
that.
I don't know why Python has originally chosen to iterate on just
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would simplify D, make it more flexible, and
remove some awkward corner cases like the inability to say a.length++.
How would this remove this corner case?
What do you think?
Whether T[new] is bultin (mostly implemented in the runtime), or a
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would simplify D, make it more flexible, and
remove some awkward corner cases like the inability to say a.length++.
How would this remove this corner case?
Can't increment length if it's read-only.
Andrei
Denis Koroskin:
Why would you want to port C code to D, if you can easily interface with it?
First of all you have to consider programmer experience, they know C, so
keeping the language backwards compatible with C helps them avoid bugs and
learn D faster.
If you ignore what programmers know,
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:55:28 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:05:39 +0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing
T[] to a function
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing T[]
to a function and then the function resizes the T[]. What happens with
the original?
The solution we came up with was to create a third array type,
Bill Baxter pisze:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Piotrek star...@tlen.pl wrote:
Bill Baxter pisze:
I think the default should be to iterate over whatever 'in' looks at.
I was almost convinced, because that rule has a sense. But treating normal
arrays and associative array has more sense
Moritz Warning wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:58:08 +, BCS wrote:
what will this do?
foreach(key; aa.keys)
if(Test(key))
aa.remove(key);
It's undefined behavior.
You shouldn't try to mutate the aa while iterating.
I hope that will be fixed.
It took me some time to find this out.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Piotrek star...@tlen.pl wrote:
Bill Baxter pisze:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Piotrek star...@tlen.pl wrote:
Bill Baxter pisze:
I think the default should be to iterate over whatever 'in' looks at.
I was almost convinced, because that rule has a
Piotrek wrote:
bearophile Wrote:
I'd really like the default iteration on an AA to yield its keys, instead of
values as currently done. Because if I have a key I can find its value, while the
opposite is not possible, so having keys is much more useful. This is true in Python too.
In my
dsimcha wrote:
Here's my proposal for how T[new] should work:
1. It should be a reference type to be consistent with slices. Yes, slices are
kind of a hybrid, but they're more semantically similar to reference types than
value types. If you can't modify the length of a slice anymore, then
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
3. A T[new] should be implicitly convertible to a slice. For example:
auto foo = someFunctionThatReturnsTnew();
// foo is a T[new].
T[] bar = someFunctionThatReturnsTnew();
// Works. bar is a T[]. The
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
3. A T[new] should be implicitly convertible to a slice. For example:
auto foo = someFunctionThatReturnsTnew();
// foo is a T[new].
T[] bar = someFunctionThatReturnsTnew();
// Works. bar is a T[].
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:19:28 -0400, dolive doliv...@sina.com wrote:
Robert Jacques дµ½:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:31:56 -0400, dolive doliv...@sina.com wrote:
Robert Jacques �´µ½:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:21:55 -0400, dolive doliv...@sina.com wrote:
Robert Jacques
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
3. A T[new] should be implicitly convertible to a slice. For example:
auto foo = someFunctionThatReturnsTnew();
// foo
Walter Bright wrote:
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing T[]
to a function and then the function resizes the T[]. What happens with
the original?
The solution we came up with was to create a third array type, T[new],
which was a reference type.
Andrei had
== Quote from downs (default_357-l...@yahoo.de)'s article
Walter Bright wrote:
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing T[]
to a function and then the function resizes the T[]. What happens with
the original?
The solution we came up with was to create a third
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would simplify D, make it more flexible, and
remove some awkward corner cases like the inability to say a.length++.
How would this remove this corner case?
Can't increment length if it's
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would simplify D, make it more flexible,
and remove some awkward corner cases like the inability to say
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would simplify D, make it more flexible,
and remove some awkward corner cases like the inability to say
a.length++.
How would this remove this corner case?
Can't increment length if
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would simplify D, make it more flexible,
and remove some awkward corner cases like the
Am I the only one that has trouble remembering how to write an inline anonymous
delegate when calling a function? At a minimum, both Scala and C# use (args) =
{ body; } syntax. Can we please sneak it into D2?
Jason House wrote:
Am I the only one that has trouble remembering how to write an inline
anonymous delegate when calling a function? At a minimum, both Scala
and C# use (args) = { body; } syntax. Can we please sneak it into
D2?
We have (args) { body; }
Andrei
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would simplify D, make it more flexible,
and remove some
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Am I the only one that has trouble remembering how to write an inline
anonymous delegate when calling a function? At a minimum, both Scala
and C# use (args) = { body; } syntax. Can we please sneak it into
D2?
We have (args) { body; }
Hello Nick,
BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message
If mine did that I'd shoot him (a scorching e-mail :)
You should both feel lucky. The best I had was a class where we filled
in the bodies of a handful of small functions in a trivial assembler
(trivial meaning completely bare-minimum, and no
Hello Ellery,
BCS wrote:
Hello Ellery,
For some reason, my professor seems to be skipping LR parsing.
If mine did that I'd shoot him (a scorching e-mail :)
It's probably because he can't make us write a LALR parser by hand.
For a small language he could. My prof has done several 2-4
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would
BCS wrote:
Hello Chris Nicholson-Sauls,
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Associative arrays are today quite problematic because they don't
offer any true iteration. Furthermore, the .keys and .values
properties create new arrays, which is wasteful.
Another issue with associative arrays is that
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:06:38PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Excellent! Sounds exactly like what I had in mind. I'll definately want to
keep an eye on this. Any webpage or svn or anything yet?
I wrote up some of a webpage for it over the weekend:
http://arsdnet.net/dws/
I haven't had a
Hello Nick,
One more correction. The date I mention for Walter post is incorrect.
It is in fact 11/08/2009 8:49 a.m.
For us yanks that would be 08/11/2009
To Just Visting, no problem.
Nick B
Robert Jacques Wrote:
Do you have a DFL for dmd2.035 ?
thank you very much !
dolive
Yes, I've e-mailed it to you.
Hi Robert,
It would be grateful if you could add samhu.sa...@gmail.com in your list.
Regards,
Sam
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:51:37 -0400, Sam Hu samhudotsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Jacques Wrote:
Do you have a DFL for dmd2.035 ?
thank you very much !
dolive
Yes, I've e-mailed it to you.
Hi Robert,
It would be grateful if you could add samhu.sa...@gmail.com in your list.
Regards,
Sam
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from downs (default_357-l...@yahoo.de)'s article
Walter Bright wrote:
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing T[]
to a function and then the function resizes the T[]. What happens with
the original?
The solution we came up with was to
Robert Jacques дµ½:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:51:37 -0400, Sam Hu samhudotsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Jacques Wrote:
Do you have a DFL for dmd2.035 ?
thank you very much !
dolive
Yes, I've e-mailed it to you.
Hi Robert,
It would be grateful if you could add
Robert Jacques дµ½:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:51:37 -0400, Sam Hu samhudotsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Jacques Wrote:
Do you have a DFL for dmd2.035 ?
thank you very much !
dolive
Yes, I've e-mailed it to you.
Hi Robert,
It would be grateful if you could add
dsimcha wrote:
The bugs in the current arrays are pretty nasty from a
theoretical safety/purity point of view (esp. the one that's a hole in
immutability), but are seldom run into in practice.
We'd like to get D to the point where guarantees can be offered. This
really sets it apart from C++,
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Saaa wrote:
public void addToAA(char[] var_name, KT, ET)(KT key, ET element)
{
mixin(ET.stringof~`[]* elements = key in `~var_name~`;`);
if( elements == null )
{
ET[] temp;
temp.length = 1;
temp[0] = element;
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Saaa wrote:
public void addToAA(char[] var_name, KT, ET)(KT key, ET element)
{
mixin(ET.stringof~`[]* elements = key in `~var_name~`;`);
if( elements == null )
{
ET[] temp;
temp.length = 1;
temp[0] = element;
mixin(var_name~`[key] = temp;`);
Saaa wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Saaa wrote:
public void addToAA(char[] var_name, KT, ET)(KT key, ET element)
{
mixin(ET.stringof~`[]* elements = key in `~var_name~`;`);
if( elements == null )
{
ET[] temp;
temp.length = 1;
temp[0] = element;
mixin(var_name~`[key] =
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2487
David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2108
David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||swadena...@gmail.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2973
David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3416
Summary: Non-compilable template instantiation in is(typeof())
fails compilation
Product: D
Version: 2.035
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3416
Max Samukha samu...@voliacable.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3417
Summary: std.stdio.File needs size
Product: D
Version: 2.035
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2973
--- Comment #8 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2009-10-18
13:06:15 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Since I filed this one and I'm thoroughly convinced now that it's not
necessary
and noone else seems to want it, I'm
82 matches
Mail list logo
