Walter Bright:
The previous behavior for function parameters can be retained by making
it a ref parameter:
void foo(ref T[3] a)
If I have generic code, like a templated function, that accepts both a dynamic
and a static array, the function call will change its performance signature
Nick B wrote:
Nick B wrote:
Bartosz Milewski wrote:
Nick B Wrote:
Could you give us _any_ kind of test case (even if it's enormous)?
Bartosz - are you able to provide a test case as requested by Don ?
Then it might be possible, to get this bug fixed.
Nick B.
I can send you the files I
Walter Bright wrote:
Currently, static arrays are (as in C) half-value types and
half-reference types. This tends to cause a series of weird problems and
special cases in the language semantics, such as functions not being
able to return static arrays, and out parameters not being possible to
dolive wrote:
will appear d3 ? What are the tasks ? it's not backward compatible
with D2 ? What major changes ?
when to stop adding new content of d2 ?
thank you very much to all
dolive
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel
Bill Baxter дµ½:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Jason House
jason.james.ho...@gmail.com wrote:
dolive Wrote:
will appear d3 ? What are the tasks ? it's not backward compatible
with D2 ? What major changes ?
My understanding is that there will be a significant gap between the
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic difference between the expression creating a @struct@
object---Test(@\meta{args}@)@---and the
Don дµ½:
dolive wrote:
will appear d3 ? What are the tasks ? it's not backward compatible
with D2 ? What major changes ?
when to stop adding new content of d2 ?
thank you very much to all
dolive
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel
thank you very
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic difference between the expression creating a @struct@
Walter Bright wrote:
Currently, static arrays are (as in C) half-value types and
half-reference types. This tends to cause a series of weird problems and
special cases in the language semantics, such as functions not being
able to return static arrays, and out parameters not being possible to
Jason House Wrote:
I've never heard the argument why they should be value types.
Weren't they value types from the start? That's surprise. What do you think is
memory layout of such array: int[3][] ? And what is memory layout of int[] ?
Walter Bright Wrote:
Andrei and I agonized over this for some time, and eventually came to
the conclusion that static arrays should become value types.
Nothing to agonize about really (except for C compatibility), they're value
types and their behavior must be consistent.
Don:
I think this change is mandatory. We need it for SIMD operations.
Why? Why the compiler can't optimize things and perform SIMD operations with
the fixed-sized array semantics of D1? (I ask this for LDC too, that's mostly
D1 still).
Bye,
bearophile
bearophile wrote:
Don:
I think this change is mandatory. We need it for SIMD operations.
Why? Why the compiler can't optimize things and perform SIMD operations with
the fixed-sized array semantics of D1? (I ask this for LDC too, that's mostly
D1 still).
Bye,
bearophile
Because they are
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.208.1255923114.20261.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
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
On 2009-10-20 03:41:59 +0200, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
Safe as in SafeD (i.e. no memory corruption) :)
Right. The problems with other definitions of safe is they are too ill-defined.
no (or as little as possible) undefined behaviour comes to
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Speaking of switch, I have tried to convince Walter to require either a
break; or a goto case xxx; at the end of each snippet inside a switch. I
was surprised by his answer: but I use fall through all the time! :o)
I personally think requiring a goto case xxx; is
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:50:46 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Currently, static arrays are (as in C) half-value types and
half-reference types. This tends to cause a series of weird problems and
special cases in the language semantics, such as functions not being
able to
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost involved, and the added keyword makes that clear.
Also, somebody mentioned using 'new' to allocate structs on
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Rainer Deyke wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
One surprising (but safe) behavior that remains with slices is this:
void fun(int[] a) {
a[0] = 0;
a ~= 42;
a[0] = 42;
}
The caller may or may not see 42 in the first slot after the call.
Your definition of
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:12:39 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
l...@lunesu.remove.com wrote:
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost involved, and the added
Chris Nicholson-Sauls Wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic difference between the expression creating
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost involved, and the added keyword makes that clear.
That's actually one problem: a
Max Samukha wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:12:39 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
l...@lunesu.remove.com wrote:
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost involved,
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:44:39 -0400, Rainer Deyke rain...@eldwood.com
wrote:
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
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote:
Fawzi Mohamed fmoha...@mac.com wrote in message
news:hbhi5q$1gq...@digitalmars.com...
On 2009-10-18 20:01:26 +0200, language_fan f...@bar.com.invalid said:
Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:35:53 +0200, Fawzi Mohamed thusly wrote:
on x86
On 2009-10-20 08:16:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
Incidentally, shouldn't all access to the object in the in contract be
const by default anyways?
Hum, access to everything (including global variables, arguments), not
just the object, should be const in a
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:49:12 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Don wrote:
There are two sensible options:
I see the question as, is T[new] a value type or a reference type? I see
it as a reference type, and so assignment should act like a reference
assignment, not
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:58:08 -0400, BCS n...@anon.com 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
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:28:51 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org 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
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:49:12 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Don wrote:
There are two sensible options:
I see the question as, is T[new] a value type or a reference type? I
see it as a reference type, and so assignment should act like a
Don, el 20 de octubre a las 09:00 me escribiste:
Unfortunately, I have undone some of my changes trying to
bypass the bug, so at the moment I don't even have the buggy
version, but it can be reconstructed. We can discuss it
off-line, if you want. Use my email address with -nospam
removed.
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
Walter Bright:
The previous behavior for function parameters can be retained by making
it a ref parameter:
void foo(ref T[3] a)
If I have generic code, like a templated function, that accepts both a dynamic
and a static
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 19 de octubre a las 22:16 me escribiste:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Jason House, el 19 de octubre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM,
dsimcha, el 20 de octubre a las 02:44 me escribiste:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
Currently, static arrays are (as in C) half-value types and
half-reference types. This tends to cause a series of weird problems and
special cases in the language
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 19 de octubre a las 22:16 me escribiste:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Jason House, el 19 de octubre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon,
I've built an XML parsing library in the last few months as an
experimentation of D2 template capabilities and as an attempt to work
with ranges. The idea is that if successful enough it could become part
of Phobos 2. You can use it to do tokenization as an event parser or a
pull parser or a
Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:34:35 -0300, Leandro Lucarella thusly wrote:
dsimcha, el 20 de octubre a las 02:44 me escribiste:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
Currently, static arrays are (as in C) half-value types and
half-reference types. This tends to cause a
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:51:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I just wrote this to Sean and Walter and subsequently discussed it with
Walter. Walter thinks this should work. Does anyone have the time and
inclination to test this out? It would involve hacking
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:37:26 -0400, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:51:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I just wrote this to Sean and Walter and subsequently discussed it
with Walter. Walter thinks this should work. Does anyone have the time
and inclination to test this out?
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:14:52 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:51:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I just wrote this to Sean and Walter and subsequently discussed it
with
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:05:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:37:26 -0400, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:37:40 -0400, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu
wrote:
So you want to synchronize the ~= function? I thought the LRU would be
thread local and therefore independent of these issues, as well as being
faster. And if the LRU isn't thread-local, then why not make it part of
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:14:52 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This is a very good idea. Incidentally, you only need the upper bound
location, the beginning location is irrelevant, since you don't grow
down.
Awesome, didn't
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:05:39 -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[].
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:48:31 -0400, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:05:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'd think you only want to clear the entries affected by the collection.
If it was free and simple to only clear the affected
language_fan, el 20 de octubre a las 13:52 me escribiste:
Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:34:35 -0300, Leandro Lucarella thusly wrote:
dsimcha, el 20 de octubre a las 02:44 me escribiste:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
Currently, static arrays are (as in C)
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 20 de octubre a las 08:42 me escribiste:
Why not Scoped!T ? I think the purpose for this that the lifetime of the
object is bounded to the scope, right? I think is hard to figure that out
from InSitu!T than Scoped!T.
/useless discussion
It's not a useless
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:36:14 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-10-20 08:16:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
Incidentally, shouldn't all access to the object in the in contract be
const by default anyways?
Hum, access to everything
This works with g++ and inline ATT assembly, but I have had no such luck in D.
I have many simple functions that need to be executed sequentially and have
identical stack frames. To avoid the overhead of setting up and tearing down
the stack frames I want to jmp from the body of one function to
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:10:20 -0400, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:05:39 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had
On 2009-10-20 11:44:00 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:36:14 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-10-20 08:16:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
Incidentally, shouldn't all access to the object
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:50:46 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Currently, static arrays are (as in C) half-value types and
half-reference types. This tends to cause a series of weird problems and
special cases in the language semantics, such as functions not being
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:57:05 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-10-20 11:44:00 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:36:14 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-10-20 08:16:01 -0400, Steven
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:24:21 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:48:31 -0400, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:05:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'd think you only want to clear the
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:10:20 -0400, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:05:39 -0400, Walter Bright
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:50:46 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Currently, static arrays are (as in C) half-value types and
half-reference types. This tends to cause a series of weird problems and
grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I still think having an Appender object or struct is a worthwhile
thing, the pre-allocate array then set length to zero model is a
hack at best.
Would that work with Andrei's append cache at all? Setting the length to
zero and then appending is
On 2009-10-20 12:04:20 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:57:05 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-10-20 11:44:00 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:36:14 -0400, Michel Fortin
sprucely:
This works with g++ and inline ATT assembly, but I have had no such luck in D.
What compiler are you using? I think LDC isn't yet able to do this (it's LLVM
limit, that may get lifted in future).
Bye,
bearophile
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:01:17 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I still think having an Appender object or struct is a worthwhile
thing, the pre-allocate array then set length to zero model is a
hack at best.
Would
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
To Andrei, do you really feel comfortable trying to explain this in
your book? It seems like it will be difficult to explain that ~= is
sometimes efficient for appending but not
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:30:57 -0400, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:10:20 -0400, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I still think having an Appender object or struct is a worthwhile
thing, the pre-allocate array then set length to zero model is a
hack at best.
Would that work with Andrei's append cache at all? Setting the length
to
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:13:07 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
So what we need is semi-pure functions that can see all the globals as
const data, or in other terms having no side effect but which can be
affected by their environment. Another function qualifier, isn't it
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
If your goal is to affect the
original array, then you should accept a ref argument or not append to it.
I think that's an entirely reasonable (and easy to explain) stance.
Andrei
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
If your goal is to affect the original array, then you should accept a ref
argument or not append to it.
I think that's an entirely reasonable (and easy to explain) stance.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
Also, somebody mentioned using 'new' to allocate structs on the heap;
I've never actually done that, but it sounds like using 'new' would be
the perfect way to do just that.
Yah, I guess I'll drop it.
Consistency with structs demands that
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 19 de octubre a las 22:16 me escribiste:
No problem. You will be able to use InSitu!T. It is much better to
confine unsafe features to libraries instead of putting them in the
language.
{
auto foo =
Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:39:47 -0300, Leandro Lucarella thusly wrote:
language_fan, el 20 de octubre a las 13:52 me escribiste:
Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:34:35 -0300, Leandro Lucarella thusly wrote:
dsimcha, el 20 de octubre a las 02:44 me escribiste:
== Quote from Walter Bright
Don wrote:
Don, are you able to contact Bartosz, re the details of this test case.
Nick B
Bartosz has sent it to me. I can reproduce the error. It's my top
priority, but it'll take a while -- it's nasty.
Don - thanks for filing this. I did try to contact you, via bugzilla
email (which
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:43:16 -0400, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
If your goal is to affect the original array, then you should accept a
ref
argument or not append
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Max Samukha wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:12:39 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
l...@lunesu.remove.com wrote:
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:45:50 +0300, sprucely timber...@gmail.com wrote:
This works with g++ and inline ATT assembly, but I have had no such luck
in D. I have many simple functions that need to be executed sequentially
and have identical stack frames. To avoid the overhead of setting up and
Jason House wrote:
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) {
bearophile,
DMD 1.0.43 I think. But I'll have to check to make sure, because I was
experimenting with LDC at one point.
So does this mean there's nothing inherently wrong with my snippet?
My C++ code was also modifying the this pointer as it jumped from a member
function of one class to a
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.208.1255923114.20261.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
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
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Jason House wrote:
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
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:13:07 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
So what we need is semi-pure functions that can see all the globals as
const data, or in other terms having no side effect but which can be
affected by their environment. Another
To try to be sure I had the correct syntax I tried the -S option of g++ along
with a switch for intel syntax to output the assembly. However the portion
corresponding to the inline assembly was still in ATT syntax.
For my resulting D executable I tried using hte, but it would abort after
Brad Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Walter Bright wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
Safe as in SafeD (i.e. no memory corruption) :)
Right. The problems with other definitions of safe is they are too
ill-defined.
There's SafeD, which has a fairly formal definition.
But a fairly generic
Jason House wrote:
dolive Wrote:
will appear d3 ? What are the tasks ? it's not backward compatible
with D2 ? What major changes ?
My understanding is that there will be a significant gap between the
finalization of D2 and the start of D3. Bartosz's ownership scheme may
be part of D3.
language_fan, el 20 de octubre a las 19:19 me escribiste:
One nasty thing about D's structs is that they don't have structural
equivalence relation unlike tuples. So you need to use the same
container struct type to get the same semantics. To achieve that you
would need some kind of STuple
I'm messing around w/ core.sync. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong in
this program? It just hangs. If I could figure out ()##$) condition mutexes
(right now, I'm using busy spinning), I might have a decent implementation of
parallelForeach over ranges.
import core.sync.mutex,
sprucely wrote:
To try to be sure I had the correct syntax I tried the -S option of g++ along
with a switch for intel syntax to output the assembly. However the portion
corresponding to the inline assembly was still in ATT syntax.
For my resulting D executable I tried using hte, but it
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:38:33 -0400, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com
wrote:
language_fan, el 20 de octubre a las 19:19 me escribiste:
One nasty thing about D's structs is that they don't have structural
equivalence relation unlike tuples. So you need to use the same
container struct type
On 10/20/09, Nick B ni...@gmail.com wrote:
Re your use of a binary protocol.
Perhaps instead of re-inventing the wheel,
Eh, my code is already written and works. One of the advantages to my
code generator reading a C like syntax is that I might be able to
fully automate porting some
Robert Jacques, el 20 de octubre a las 21:06 me escribiste:
Real tuple types do not have a special type tag which gets injected
implicitly with structs. So every time you try to do something
lightweight by emulating tuples, you need to refer to the global Tuple
type or bang your head to the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:45:53 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:38:33 -0400, Leandro Lucarella
llu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, D support for tuples is way far from ideal.
How so? I think this is merely the difference
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:30:48 -0400, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Robert Jacques, el 20 de octubre a las 21:06 me escribiste:
Now, if SOL allowed tuples to do things you can't do today in D,
like assign a tuple to a struct with the same signature, then this
might be a point. But
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:56:13 +, dsimcha wrote:
I'm messing around w/ core.sync. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong
in this program? It just hangs. If I could figure out ()##$) condition
mutexes (right now, I'm using busy spinning), I might have a decent
implementation of
On 21/10/2009 05:48, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:30:48 -0400, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Robert Jacques, el 20 de octubre a las 21:06 me escribiste:
Now, if SOL allowed tuples to do things you can't do today in D,
like assign a tuple to a struct with the same
Kagamin wrote:
Zarathustra Wrote:
Oh, I just find out cause of this behaviour in other module I had:
extern (Windows) alias dword function() Tfunc1;
extern (Windows) alias dword function(wstr) Tfunc2;
const Tfunc2 func2;
static this(){
func2 = cast(Tfunc1)0x0; // for DMD2 It is not error!!!
Don Wrote:
It isn't. Tfunc2 is a function pointer, which is typically the same as
size_t. So any int can be stored inside it. It's generally a very bad
idea to do so, of course.
Never mind what is stored inside func2. 0x00 is only to simplify the code.
Tfunc1 - pointer to function without
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:39:57 -0500, Zarathustra
adam.chrapkow...@gmail.com wrote:
Function is never called but why?
look at: window.Window.wndProc : case WM.LBUTTONDOWN
//__
module window;
private import base;
private import structs;
private
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3422
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3422
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3423
Summary: The Bartosz Blocker
Product: D
Version: 2.035
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: patch, wrong-code
Severity: blocker
Priority:
d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3423
Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3424
Summary: Ref counting still doesn't work for std.stdio.File
Product: D
Version: 2.035
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priority:
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
