Re: Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

On 11/15/2014 11:14 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Am 16.11.2014 um 05:51 schrieb Walter Bright: What I find odd about the progress of C++ (11, 14, 17, ...) is that there has been no concerted effort to make the preprocesser obsolete. What about templates, compile time reflection, modules and compile t

Re: Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

Am 16.11.2014 um 05:51 schrieb Walter Bright: On 11/13/2014 3:44 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: After having adapted to D and distancing from C++, trying to go back is like some form of inhuman torture! I really don't remember it being as bad as it is... the time away has given me new perspec

Re: Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

On 11/13/2014 3:44 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: After having adapted to D and distancing from C++, trying to go back is like some form of inhuman torture! I really don't remember it being as bad as it is... the time away has given me new perspective on how terrible C++ is, and I can say with

Re: Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

On 11/13/2014 5:55 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: I realised within minutes that it's almost impossible to live without slices. On the plus side, I've already made lots of converts in my new office from my constant ranting :P You should submit a presentation proposal to the O'Reilly Software

Re: Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

On 11/14/2014 4:32 PM, deadalnix wrote: To quote the guy from the PL for video games video serie, a 85% solution often is preferable. Spoken like a true engineer!

Re: Shared library packaging issues

On Saturday, 15 November 2014 at 22:19:07 UTC, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: It's a libgphobos-dev package for gdc. Ah, so they repackage it as well. Same with LDC. Not that it helps much, given that there's also no GDC on openSUSE. Oh well.

Re: Shared library packaging issues

On Saturday, 15 November 2014 at 21:01:49 UTC, GreatEmerald wrote: Though it does make me wonder, how do GDC and LDC handle this issue? Do they also include libphobos2 as part of the compiler? That's something entirely up to the distro packagers to get right in the case of LDC. We don't direct

Re: Dynamic array as stack and GC.BlkAttr.APPENDABLE

On Saturday, 15 November 2014 at 03:41:56 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 11/14/14 8:56 PM, IgorStepanov wrote: On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 23:49:00 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:23:17 + IgorStepanov via Digitalmars-d wrote: What does the NO_INTERI

Re: Shared library packaging issues

On 15 Nov 2014 21:05, "GreatEmerald via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, 15 November 2014 at 18:36:28 UTC, Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> >> Meanwhile there is not an RPM package for phobos 2 shared library, I think you can spread it together with yo

Re: Shared library packaging issues

On Saturday, 15 November 2014 at 18:36:28 UTC, Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d wrote: Meanwhile there is not an RPM package for phobos 2 shared library, I think you can spread it together with your library: "/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.66.1" (for 32-bit) "/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/li

Re: On heap segregation, GC optimization and @nogc relaxing

On Saturday, 15 November 2014 at 12:52:33 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: Thanks for the link! I agree ML has some interesting work done for it, but they make some assumptions: 1. low portion of mutable objects 2. small heap fits in per-core-cache (<256KiB on Haswell). So the small heap is ba

Higgs repo link on the HN front page

As always, no direct link. The entry just points to the GitHub repository with its README. No discussion yet, except for a reference to Maxime's blog. David

Re: Linux 64bit Calling Convention

On 14 November 2014 20:27, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 20:19:56 UTC, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d > wrote: >> >> Really? I say this all the time. (OK, maybe not so much over the last >> 5 or so months :) > > > Yeah, and if I remember correctly, we bot

Re: Shared library packaging issues

El 15/11/14 a les 18:29, GreatEmerald via Digitalmars-d ha escrit: > Nice. Now if only there were RPMs as well... If only as a template. Meanwhile there is not an RPM package for phobos 2 shared library, I think you can spread it together with your library: "/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so

Re: Shared library packaging issues

On Saturday, 15 November 2014 at 14:49:23 UTC, Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d wrote: Since dmd v2.064.0, a shared phobos2 library package already exist for Debian based systems:

Re: Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

On 2014-11-14 15:28, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: I don't know yet, but the 5.1 simulator will probably have to run on OS-X 10.6.8 from what I've found on the net. Maybe it is possible to do as you said with clang… Hm. The simulator bundled with Xcode 5 run on Yosemite but n

Re: Shared library packaging issues

El 15/11/14 a les 12:21, GreatEmerald via Digitalmars-d ha escrit: > Ideally, this problem would be solved by splitting libphobos2.so into its own > package. Since dmd v2.064.0, a shared phobos2 library package already exist for Debian based systems:

Re: shared libraries on OS X

On 2014-11-14 16:26, Martin Nowak wrote: There is some Mach-O support to be notified (via a callback) when a new shared library is loaded. It wasn't possible to unset that callback though, meaning it would segfault when druntime itself is unloaded. Right, I keep forgetting that. -- /Jacob Car

Re: X86 COFF format static libraries is very important for d, how to use them? -ms32coff?

Maybe you forgot to clean up the object files from the win64/win32-dmc build? This is extracted from my build batch: set dm_make=c:\l\dmc\bin\make set DMD=../windows/bin/dmd.exe set cl32=%VCINSTALLDIR%/bin/cl.exe set ar32=%VCINSTALLDIR%/bin/lib.exe cd druntime del /q errno_c.obj complex.obj

Re: shared libraries on OS X

On 2014-11-14 17:18, David Nadlinger wrote: 10.7. And IMHO the most useful documentation for actually getting stuff done is the ld source code (opensource.apple.com). There's also the source code for the compiler (Clang, LLVM) and the dynamic linker (dyld). -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: shared libraries on OS X

On 2014-11-14 17:40, Sean Kelly wrote: We're two releases into having native support for TLS in OSX now, so it probably is time to switch over. There have been four releases of OS X which support TLS, 10.7-10.10. -- /Jacob Carlborg

Writing malformed it?

[code] import core.sys.windows.windows; import std.concurrency; import core.sync.semaphore; import core.thread; //struct sPool(T){ //<--- it good shared struct sPool(T){ T[] _buff; Semaphore _sp ; auto pfReadAny() { _sp.wait();

Re: On heap segregation, GC optimization and @nogc relaxing

On Saturday, 15 November 2014 at 00:16:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote: The idea is based on Doligez-Leroy's GC, but using TL heap as the small object and immutable heap as the shared. Note that this GC is done for ML, where most things are immutable and this is why it works well (only require write bar

Re: Microsoft now giving away VS 2013

On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 20:22:30 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: ... Good point and it also answers the main question about D - to become popular there need to be tools written in D. In fact I wrote a couple at work, simple beasts that do one thing and do it well. Problem is we need Ope

Re: Shared library packaging issues

Well, because of this reason, I completely left D and started writing my shared library in pure C. As much as I miss the syntax of D, I needed to do this (Where are you betterC? Are you there yet?). Since it is not a big library, that wouldn't be a big problem. Anyway, I think instead of inst

Shared library packaging issues

I'm currently attempting to package my D project (https://github.com/GreatEmerald/libarcomage/) as a shared library for openSUSE and whatnot, but I'm running into some policy problems. First, in order to build a shared library, it has to link against libphobos2.so. libphobos2.so is provided b

Re: Microsoft now giving away VS 2013

On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 20:29:26 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: Classics! :) I love these kinds of statements with "heavy lifting" and "great scalability" and "huge amounts of data". And things like e.g. Python web frameworks claiming to be "super fast" at request routing because they c