On 10/18/18 10:11 AM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 13:35:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
struct ThreadSafe
{
private int x;
void increment()
{
++x; // I know this is not shared, so no reason to use atomics
}
void increment() shared
{
atomi
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 13:35:22 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
struct ThreadSafe
{
private int x;
void increment()
{
++x; // I know this is not shared, so no reason to use
atomics
}
void increment() shared
{
atomicIncrement(&x); // use atomics, to avoid
On 10/18/18 9:35 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
struct NotThreadsafe
{
private int x;
void local()
{
++x; // <- invalidates the method below, you violate the other
function's `shared` promise
}
void notThreadsafe() shared
{
atomicIncrement(&x);
}
}
[snip]
But
On 10/18/18 2:20 AM, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:05 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[... all text ...]
OMFG, I just spent about 3 hours writing a super-detailed reply to all
of Timon's posts in aggregate... I clicked send... and it's gone.
I don't know if
On 10/17/18 10:26 PM, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:50 PM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
The implicit cast means that you have to look at more than just your
method. You have to look at the entire module, and figure out all the
interactions, to see if the thread safe method
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 13:09:10 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
Ergo... you can't have functions taking pointers to shared
primitives. Ergo, `shared ` becomes a useless
language construct.
Yup, this is correct. But wrap it in a struct, like e.g.
Atomic!int, and everything's hunky-dory.
So
On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 21:26:52 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
I have done two mistakes: I underestimated the scope of the
project and overestimated my capabilities. This caused a chain
reaction, which in turn made the first milestone unreachable.
At the same time, my sleep disorder became
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 12:15:07 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 11:35:21 UTC, Simen Kjærås
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 10:08:48 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
Manu,
how is it that you can't see what *your own* proposal
means??? Implicit casting f
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 11:35:21 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 10:08:48 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
Manu,
how is it that you can't see what *your own* proposal means???
Implicit casting from mutable to shared means that everything
is shared by default! Prec
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If something might be used by someone else it's better not to
touch it, unless one has confirmation it is not used by
someone else.
This is what shared has to enforce.
Yes. But how can the compiler statically verify this? Bec
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 10:08:48 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
Manu,
how is it that you can't see what *your own* proposal means???
Implicit casting from mutable to shared means that everything
is shared by default! Precisely the opposite of what D
proclaims.
Well, sorta. But that's
Manu,
how is it that you can't see what *your own* proposal means???
Implicit casting from mutable to shared means that everything is
shared by default! Precisely the opposite of what D proclaims.
You also essentially forbid defining *any* functions that take
`shared T*` argument(s). You kee
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 00:28:32 UTC, solidstate1991
wrote:
I hope it's not some melatonin insensitivity, that would
require some pretty harsh drugs.
Have you given Cannabis a try? You don't have to smoke it, it can
be vaporized too for example, and is really easy to grow yourself.
D usually has a talk in the LLVM room.
There are more options, e.g., we are organizing a devroom on
Minimalistic Languages. It may be an idea to propose one or two
talks on minimalism. D as a betterC would be interesting.
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/FOSDEM2019-devroom-minimalism
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 00:24:29 UTC, Kai wrote:
C:\D2\dmd2\windows\bin\lld-link.exe: error: could not open
libcmt.lib: no such file or directory
You should link with dynamic crt, pass an option like
-msctrlib=msvcrt100.lib or something like that
https://dlang.org/dmd-windows.html#swi
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The problem, of course, is that they are also charged
particles, and the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom in
place would be greatly disturbed if two atoms were to occupy
the same space simultaneously, leading to a (very
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 00:24:29 UTC, Kai wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 17:44:34 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
[...]
Hmm - wish it was so. When architecture not specified, the
linker crashes. When it's given, this happens (seems to be a
vibe issue?):
[...]
As far as I can
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 06:20:02 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:05 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[... all text ...]
OMFG, I just spent about 3 hours writing a super-detailed reply
to all
of Timon's posts in aggregate... I clicked send... and it's
gon
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 20:03:23 UTC, lagfra wrote:
On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 21:26:52 UTC, solidstate1991
wrote:
I have done two mistakes: I underestimated the scope of the
project and overestimated my capabilities. This caused a chain
reaction, which in turn made the first milest
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:05 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> [... all text ...]
OMFG, I just spent about 3 hours writing a super-detailed reply to all
of Timon's posts in aggregate... I clicked send... and it's gone.
I don't know if this is a gmail thing, a mai
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:15 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 17.10.2018 14:24, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > and unshared methods are only allowed to access unshared members.
>
> This is actually not necessary, let me reformulate:
>
> You want:
>
> - if yo
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:50 PM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/17/18 6:37 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:35 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/17/18 2:46 PM, Manu wrote:
> >
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 23:12:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM Stanislav Blinov via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 19:25:33 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM Stanislav Blinov via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:35 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 23:12:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM Stanislav Blinov via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, 17 Octo
On 10/17/18 6:37 PM, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:35 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 10/17/18 2:46 PM, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
What the example demonstrates is that while you are trying to disallow
implicit
I don't have anything to add that hasn't been said yet but it's
good to see some thinking on this subject. It feels like progress.
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 23:12:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM Stanislav Blinov via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 19:25:33 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM Stanislav Blinov via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 02:20:09 UTC, Soulsbane wrote:
Have you tried melatonin? My doctor has me take a 1mg tablet
and split it in two. So I take 1/2 at bedtime. That is the
sweet spot. If you take more than that you will end up groggy.
No, but I'll since I used to have this issue even
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 17:44:34 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 17:37:37 UTC, Kai wrote:
I just ran into this linker issue (see answer below that I
grabbed from the vibe.d forum) as well - where can I ask/track
about the progress on this issue?
Do you have
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:13:37PM +, Stefan Koch via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh
wrote:
[...]
> But nobody will be building a fusion engine out of race
> conditions a
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 19:25:33 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM Stanislav Blinov via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, 17 Octo
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:13:37PM +, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> > But nobody will be building a fusion engine out of race conditions
> > anytime in the foreseeable future. :-D
[...]
> Now
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:35 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On 10/17/18 2:46 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
>
> >> What the example demonstrates is that while you are trying to disallow
> >> imp
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Nah, that's not even anywhere close to nuclear fusion.
The atoms which make up your body (and basically everything
else) are mostly empty, with just a tiny speck of a nucleus,
and a bunch of extremely tiny electrons zipping ab
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
But nobody will be building a fusion engine out of race
conditions anytime in the foreseeable future. :-D
We should be so blessed...
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:29:07PM +, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:12:49 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> > [another person] cannot actually occupy the same space. It is
> > physically impossible.
>
> Actually, that's not quite
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:40:35 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
Now, I perfectly understand what Manu wants: for `shared` to
stop being a stupid keyword that nobody uses, and start
bringing in value to the language. At the moment, the compiler
happily allows you to write and read `shared
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:29:07 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
in any case it would certainly mess up
the state of everyone involved; which is exactly what happens
win multi-threaded situations.
^ that is very true. And that is why:
- one must not keep shared and local data close togethe
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:12:49 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
[another person] cannot actually occupy the same space. It is
physically impossible.
Actually, that's not quite true, If they were to try hard enough
the result would be nuclear fusion, (I am guessing (I am not a
phsysist)), in
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 19:25:33 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM Stanislav Blinov via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 18:46:18 UTC, Manu wrote:
> I've said this a bunch of times, there are 2 rules:
> 1. shared inhibits read and writ
Hi,
reading the other shared thread "shared - i need to be
useful"(https://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.4299.1539629222.29801.digitalmar...@puremagic.com)
let me to an important realisation concerning the reason
shareding data across threads is so unintuitve and hard to get
right.
The rea
On 17.10.18 20:46, Manu wrote:
struct NotThreadsafe
{
int x;
void local()
{
++x; // <- invalidates the method below, you violate the other
function's `shared` promise
}
void notThreadsafe() shared
{
atomicIncrement(&x);
}
}
In the `shared` method you'd get a nice
On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 21:26:52 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
I have done two mistakes: I underestimated the scope of the
project and overestimated my capabilities. This caused a chain
reaction, which in turn made the first milestone unreachable.
Hi, I'm one of the other participants to th
I don't see any problem with this proposal as long as these
points hold:
- Shared <-> Unshared is never implicit, either requiring an
explicit cast (both ways) or having a language support which
allows the conversion gracefully.
- Shared methods are called by compiler if the type is shared or
On 10/17/18 2:46 PM, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
What the example demonstrates is that while you are trying to disallow
implicit casting of a shared pointer to an unshared pointer, you have
inadvertently allowed it by leaving behind an unshared pointer
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 18:46:18 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> > I've said this a bunch of times, there are 2 rules:
> > 1. shared inhibits read and write access to members
> > 2. `sh
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 18:46:18 UTC, Manu wrote:
I've said this a bunch of times, there are 2 rules:
1. shared inhibits read and write access to members
2. `shared` methods must be threadsafe
From there, shared becomes interesting and useful.
Oh God...
void atomicInc(shared int* i
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On 10/17/18 12:27 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 15:51:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> On 10/17/18 9:58 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> >>> On
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 17:37:37 UTC, Kai wrote:
I just ran into this linker issue (see answer below that I
grabbed from the vibe.d forum) as well - where can I ask/track
about the progress on this issue?
Do you have the new dmd installed? Using the x86_64 should work
now if all goes
Hi,
I just ran into this linker issue (see answer below that I
grabbed from the vibe.d forum) as well - where can I ask/track
about the progress on this issue?
Thanks!
"This is currently an unfortunate limitation on Windows, where
the DigitalMars linker runs into a crash when building with
On 10/17/18 12:27 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 15:51:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/17/18 9:58 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 13:25:28 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
It's identical to the top one. You now have a new unshar
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 14:14:56 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 07:24:13 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 05:40:41 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
When Andrei and I came up with the rules for:
mutable
const
shared
cons
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 14:44:19 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
The fact that this _type constructor_ finds its way into
_identifiers_ create some concern:
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/656798f2b385437c239246b59e0433148190938c/std/experimental/allocator/package.d#L642
Well, ISh
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 15:51:04 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/17/18 9:58 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 13:25:28 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
It's identical to the top one. You now have a new unshared
reference to shared data. This is done WIT
On 10/17/18 9:58 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 13:25:28 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It's identical to the top one. You now have a new unshared reference
to shared data. This is done WITHOUT any agreed-upon synchronization.
It isn't, you typo'd it (I originall
On 10/17/18 10:33 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 14:26:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 17.10.2018 16:14, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
I was thinking that mutable -> shared const as apposed to mutable ->
shared would get around the issues that Timon posted.
Unfortunately
On 10/17/18 10:18 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 17.10.2018 15:40, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/17/18 8:02 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Now, if a class has only shared members, that is another story. In
this case, all references should implicitly convert to shared.
There's a DIP I meant to write about
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 02:34:47 UTC, Jabari Zakiya wrote:
Just updated Atom editor and noticed D files read as plain .txt
and no D bindings in list of programs. Maybe someone should
bring that to Atom's devs attention.
Interesting, since my main editor, KDE's Kate, does have D file
sy
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 07:20:20 UTC, Manu wrote:
Shared is uninteresting and mostly useless as spec-ed, everyone
knows this.
Interaction with shared via barely-controlled blunt casting in
@trusted blocks is feeble and boring. It doesn't really give us
anything in practice that we don't
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 14:26:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 17.10.2018 16:14, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
I was thinking that mutable -> shared const as apposed to
mutable -> shared would get around the issues that Timon
posted.
Unfortunately not. For example, the thread with the mutable
On 17.10.2018 16:14, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
I was thinking that mutable -> shared const as apposed to mutable ->
shared would get around the issues that Timon posted.
Unfortunately not. For example, the thread with the mutable reference is
not obliged to actually make the changes that are pe
On 17.10.2018 15:40, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/17/18 8:02 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Now, if a class has only shared members, that is another story. In
this case, all references should implicitly convert to shared. There's
a DIP I meant to write about this. (For all qualifiers, not just shar
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 07:24:13 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 05:40:41 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
When Andrei and I came up with the rules for:
mutable
const
shared
const shared
immutable
and which can be implicitly converted to what, s
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 13:25:28 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/16/18 8:26 PM, Manu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:20 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d
wrote:
There is in fact, no difference between:
int *p;
shared int *p2 = p;
int *p3 = cast(int*)p2;
Totally
On 10/17/18 8:02 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Now, if a class has only shared members, that is another story. In this
case, all references should implicitly convert to shared. There's a DIP
I meant to write about this. (For all qualifiers, not just shared).
When you say "shared members", you mean all
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 13:36:53 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
Explicit cast from mutable to unsafe, on the other hand:
Blargh, to shared of course.
Jesus Manu, it's soon 8 pages of dancing around a trivial issue.
Implicit casting from mutable to shared is unsafe, case closed.
Explicit cast from mutable to unsafe, on the other hand:
- is an assertion (on programmer's behalf) that this instance is
indeed unique
- is self-documenting
- is gr
On 10/16/18 8:26 PM, Manu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:20 PM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 10/16/18 4:26 PM, Manu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
int x;
shared int *p = &x; // allow implicit conversion, curre
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 08:35:09 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
D + GtkD (inc GStreamerD) is really quite nice. The biggest
downside is the documentation presenting all the C examples not
D ones, and the lack of non- trivial examples of use. The
biggest problem is really not enough differ
On 17.10.2018 14:24, Timon Gehr wrote:
and unshared methods are only allowed to access unshared members.
This is actually not necessary, let me reformulate:
You want:
- if you have a C c and a shared(C) s, typeof(s.x) == typeof(c.x).
- shared methods are not allowed to access unshared members
On 10/16/18 6:24 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 21:19:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
OK, so here is where I think I misunderstood your point. When you said
a lock-free queue would be unusable if it wasn't shared, I thought you
meant it would be unusable if we did
On 17.10.2018 14:29, Timon Gehr wrote:
to access c.m iff m is not shared
Unfortunate typo. This should be if, not iff (if and only if).
On 17.10.2018 09:20, Manu wrote:
Timon Gehr has done a good job showing that they still stand
unbreached.
His last comment was applied to a different proposal.
His only comment on this thread wasn't in response to the proposal in
this thread.
If you nominate Timon as your proxy, then he needs to
On 17.10.2018 14:24, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 15.10.2018 23:51, Manu wrote:
If a shared method is incompatible with an unshared method, your class
is broken.
Then what you want is not implicit unshared->shared conversion. What you
want is a different way to type shared member access. You want a s
On 15.10.2018 23:51, Manu wrote:
If a shared method is incompatible with an unshared method, your class
is broken.
Then what you want is not implicit unshared->shared conversion. What you
want is a different way to type shared member access. You want a setup
where shared methods are only allo
On 16.10.2018 19:25, Manu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:20 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 15.10.2018 20:46, Manu wrote:
Assuming the rules above: "can't read or write to members", and the
understanding that `shared` methods are expected to have threadsafe
On 16.10.2018 20:07, Manu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:25 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 16.10.2018 13:04, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 10:15:51 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 15.10.2018 20:46, Manu wrote:
Assuming the rules above: "can&#
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 07:20:20 UTC, Manu wrote:
[snip]
Oh bollocks... everyone has been complaining about this for at
least
the 10 years I've been here!
[snip]
As far as I had known from reading the forums, shared was not
feature complete.
Also, are you familiar with Atila's fe
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 05:40:41 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 10/15/2018 11:46 AM, Manu wrote:
[...]
Shared has one incredibly valuable feature - it allows you, the
programmer, to identify data that can be accessed by multiple
threads. There are so many ways that data can be shared,
Looks like 2018H2 vision hasn't been published, and it's a bit
late for it. Are there any plans for 2019H1 document? I think it
provides a good framework for discussions, gives something to get
excited about. Right now it's hard to see what are the short and
long term goals for the language and
On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 21:26:52 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
my sleep disorder became even worse. I started to sleep 10-12
hours a day while spending around 4-6 hours in bed just to
trying to fall asleep
And when you wake up do you feel rested and fully awake or does
it take time to sobe
On 17/10/2018 10:36 PM, Márcio Martins wrote:
Hi!
To my surprise, std.digest.MurmurHash3 doesn't work in CTFE.
Would it be hard to have it explicit in the documentation if a
particular Phobos symbol works in CTFE? Maybe it could be manual, and
vote-based, to avoid building infrastructure arou
Hi!
To my surprise, std.digest.MurmurHash3 doesn't work in CTFE.
Would it be hard to have it explicit in the documentation if a
particular Phobos symbol works in CTFE? Maybe it could be manual,
and vote-based, to avoid building infrastructure around it.
Also, MurmurHash3 only outputs 32-bit
A PS to the bit on D vs Rust:
The Rust plugin to CLion is managed by JetBrains and has resource assigned,
the D plugin to CLion is a pure volunteer effort. The Rust development
experience in CLion is really rather good. The D development experience in
CLion is there, but clearly a WIP.
I mention
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 16:31 +, Gerald via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
> Wish I could see this one, it would be very interesting to hear
> your thoughts on C++ vs D vs Rust in terms of working with GTK.
I do not know if the sessions are recorded.
C++ and gtkmm sort of work but using C++
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 05:40:41 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
When Andrei and I came up with the rules for:
mutable
const
shared
const shared
immutable
and which can be implicitly converted to what, so far nobody
has found a fault in those rules...
Here's one: shared -
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:45 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/15/2018 11:46 AM, Manu wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Shared has one incredibly valuable feature - it allows you, the programmer, to
> identify data that can be accessed by multiple threads. There are so
On 10/15/2018 11:46 AM, Manu wrote:
[...]
Shared has one incredibly valuable feature - it allows you, the programmer, to
identify data that can be accessed by multiple threads. There are so many ways
that data can be shared, the only way to comprehend what is going on is to build
a wall arou
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:20 PM Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
*snip*
Overloading for shared and unshared is my reason for not
allowing implicit conversion on my types (I have no problems
with implicit conversion being optional
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:20 PM Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 06:21:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:55 PM Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 02:26:04 UTC, M
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 06:21:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:55 PM Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 02:26:04 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> I understand your point but I think the current shared (no
>> implicit conversion) has its use
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 00:29:04 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:25 PM Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 21:19:26 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
> There is in fact, no difference between:
>
> int *p;
> shared int *p2 =
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:25 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 21:19:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
> > There is in fact, no difference between:
> >
> > int *p;
> > shared int *p2 = p;
> > int *p3 = cast(in
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:20 PM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/16/18 4:26 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/16/18 2:10 PM, Manu wrote:
> >
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 22:59:18 UTC, Soulsbane wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 02:34:47 UTC, Jabari Zakiya
wrote:
Just updated Atom editor and noticed D files read as plain
.txt and no D bindings in list of programs. Maybe someone
should bring that to Atom's devs attention.
Inte
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 22:18:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/16/2018 1:16 PM, notna wrote:
[...]
We're not going to automatically close stale pull requests, nor
are we going to arbitrarily close old unfixed bug reports.
Agreed, then there won't be those 5+ year old reports we can
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 02:34:47 UTC, Jabari Zakiya wrote:
Just updated Atom editor and noticed D files read as plain .txt
and no D bindings in list of programs. Maybe someone should
bring that to Atom's devs attention.
Interesting, since my main editor, KDE's Kate, does have D file
sy
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 21:19:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
There is in fact, no difference between:
int *p;
shared int *p2 = p;
int *p3 = cast(int*)p2;
and this:
int *p;
shared int *p2 = p;
int *p3 = p;
If I understand Manu correctly the first should compile, and the
second sh
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 21:19:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
OK, so here is where I think I misunderstood your point. When
you said a lock-free queue would be unusable if it wasn't
shared, I thought you meant it would be unusable if we didn't
allow the implicit cast. But I realize n
On 10/16/2018 1:16 PM, notna wrote:
[...]
We're not going to automatically close stale pull requests, nor are we going to
arbitrarily close old unfixed bug reports.
301 - 400 of 90926 matches
Mail list logo
