Weed wrote:
Yigal Chripun пишет:
Weed wrote:
bearophile пишет:
Weed:
where else can I use that thing?
I was talking about a built-in syntax for multi-precision integral
numbers. I presume you can use it only when you want to use
multi-precision integral number :-)
Do you feel the need to use it in other situations too?
I thought proposes a more advanced method for operators overloading :)
It seems to me, all operators working with values should correspond to
processor instructions. Instruction like "Sum int [80] with int [30]"
does not exist and it is not necessary to do for it the built-in-like
syntax.
I disagree. Programing languages are for programmers, i.e Humans, not
CPUs. if you want to work with a programming language that corressponds
to a CPU, go learn Assemby language.
It makes perferct sense to use operators that do not corespond to cpu
instructions, for example:
auto m1 = new Matrix(10, 30);
auto m2 = new Matrix(30, 20);
... fill m1, m2 with data...
auto res = m1 * m2;
Ohhh! Matrices! Mmmm... :)
The point of programming languages is to provide abstarctions to the
underlying machine,
without the overhead!
so that we humans can express complex problems to
the CPU more easily.
Yes. But language without the overhead costs almost get what I said.
also, another reason for allowing: "Sum int [80] with int [30]" is due
to vectorization. modern CPUs can perform operations on vectors so
instead of doing:
for (int i = 0; i< 80; ++i) { sum[i] = a[i] + b[i] }
the CPU can process those in chunks of 4 ints at a time or something
like that. This is already implemented in DMD.
int[80] there is not an array of type int, it very big 80 bit int value
So initialization of mathematical types at compile time would be more
interesting:)
sorry, I don't understand your english.
int[80] is an array. see:
auto a = int[80];
personally I'm against your idea of using static data as this is thread
unsafe.
D2 will have shared to deal with multi-threading issues like that.
still, I'd say that static should be limited to invariant data.
it makes sense to do:
static invariant m = IdentityMatrix(3,5);
for instance, but what's the benefits of doing the same for mutable
data? I don't see it..
