Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

Been meaning to respond to this for some time now, finally got around to it. :) On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:59:45 UTC, Manu wrote: On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than you? For

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 02:23:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: I think that that we all agree that having these functions work with CTFE would be great. The disagreement is mostly on how much of an inconvenience it is or how big a deal that inconvenience is. Ultimately, it's just a

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, March 26, 2018 16:26:38 Guillaume Piolat via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, 24 March 2018 at 16:37:06 UTC, Manu wrote: > > I'm not sure why I seem to have to defend the idea that it's a > > *great > > thing* that D (in theory; according to the advertising > > brochure) does > >

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/26/2018 9:26 AM, Guillaume Piolat wrote: On Saturday, 24 March 2018 at 16:37:06 UTC, Manu wrote: I'm not sure why I seem to have to defend the idea that it's a *great thing* that D (in theory; according to the advertising brochure) does away with these requirements. Manu is not the only

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Saturday, 24 March 2018 at 16:37:06 UTC, Manu wrote: I'm not sure why I seem to have to defend the idea that it's a *great thing* that D (in theory; according to the advertising brochure) does away with these requirements. Manu is not the only one who has to write such programs because

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 24 March 2018 at 18:10, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 3/24/2018 9:37 AM, Manu wrote: >> >> I'm not sure why I seem to have to defend the idea that it's a *great >> thing* that D (in theory; according to the advertising brochure) does >> away with

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/24/2018 9:37 AM, Manu wrote: I'm not sure why I seem to have to defend the idea that it's a *great thing* that D (in theory; according to the advertising brochure) does away with these requirements. It is indeed a great idea. I'm just making the case that it isn't a blocker to not have

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 03/24/2018 12:37 PM, Manu wrote: I understand table generation, that is the standard approach. It's Huh? Then I guess I don't understand why you implied that the alternative to CTFE was manually regenerating and copy-pasting tables: >> On 3/23/2018 11:09 AM, Manu wrote: >>> Like, in

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 03/24/2018 09:53 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 01:42:56AM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] I can't recall ever seeing anyone else use this technique (other than Nick!), but it works and isn't that bad. It's not all that uncommon. I've worked with

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 2018-03-24 00:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote: OAuth is a phisher's paradise. But that aside, it's never made any sense to me for projects to self-impose a policy of "If you've found a bug, and you're non-registered, we don't want to hear about it." I would think any self-respecting project

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 2018-03-23 20:25, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Really? I've dealt with relatively few projects that use github as a bug tracker, and it's been my experience that most anything that's really serious has its own bugtracker (usually some form of bugzilla) - though most such projects predate github

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 2018-03-23 13:34, bauss wrote: What do you mean? https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?component=c%2B%2B=gcc=--- That's only limited to 500, here's a list of 10 000:

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 24 March 2018 at 01:42, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 3/23/2018 11:09 AM, Manu wrote: >> >> Like, in this particular project, being able to generate all tables at >> compile time is the thing that distinguishes the D code from the C++ >> code; it's

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 01:42:56AM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > This file: > > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/dmd/backend/optabgen.c > > computes tables, and writes several tables out to several .c files, > which are then #include'd into the main build.

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/23/2018 11:09 AM, Manu wrote: Like, in this particular project, being able to generate all tables at compile time is the thing that distinguishes the D code from the C++ code; it's the *whole point*... If I have to continue to generate tables offline and paste big tables of data in the

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 03/23/2018 02:09 PM, Manu wrote: If I have to continue to generate tables offline and paste big tables of data in the source code (and then re-generate them manually when I change something); then situation is identical to C++, therefore, stick with C++.\ WAT? When in the world would

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 00:39:03 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, 24 March 2018 at 00:08:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > On Friday, March 23, 2018 23:37:18 Nick Sabalausky via > > > > Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> I would think any self-respecting project would WANT

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Saturday, 24 March 2018 at 00:08:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Friday, March 23, 2018 23:37:18 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: I would think any self-respecting project would WANT to lower the barrier to being notified of problems, not put roadblocks in the way: That's what

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, March 23, 2018 23:37:18 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: > I would think any self-respecting project would WANT to lower the > barrier to being notified of problems, not put roadblocks in the > way: That's what outsourced call centers are for! Part of the problem with that is

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 20:38:38 UTC, Manu wrote: I'm not suggesting switch to github. I've never suggested that. I understand it's inferior. I'm suggesting supporting openauth. OAuth is a phisher's paradise. But that aside, it's never made any sense to me for projects to self-impose

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

. This was used in the DMD build, and was gradually replaced with CTFE. It still exists in the backend, which is still in C++.) Right, but then there's no reason to use D. Of course there is. It's called "all the other million things D does better than C++ besides CTFE pow". When D undermine

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23 March 2018 at 12:16, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 3/23/2018 11:09 AM, Manu wrote: >> >> [...] > > > You make some good points. The CTFE one is kinda inexcusable on our part, > because it was trivial to implement (just more or less add some table >

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 20:48:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: I have no idea whether any version of bugzilla supports it or not. - Jonathan M Davis Mozilla's fork of Bugzilla (BMO) does - see https://forum.dlang.org/post/tneyowfjewrlrtnqs...@forum.dlang.org

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23.03.2018 20:02, Manu wrote: Here's another one of these apparently trivial cases which is highly likely to emerge for a new user (ie, has, in my experience, and I have to 'explain' the situation, which is anti-merit): https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8031 The language grammar has a

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 20:38:38 UTC, Manu wrote: On 23 March 2018 at 12:25, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Friday, March 23, 2018 12:13:58 Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 23 March 2018 at 12:02, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, March 23, 2018 13:38:38 Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 23 March 2018 at 12:25, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d > > wrote: > > On Friday, March 23, 2018 12:13:58 Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> On 23 March 2018 at 12:02, Walter Bright via

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23 March 2018 at 12:25, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, March 23, 2018 12:13:58 Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> On 23 March 2018 at 12:02, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d >> >> wrote: >> > On 3/23/2018 11:14 AM,

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, March 23, 2018 12:13:58 Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 23 March 2018 at 12:02, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d > > wrote: > > On 3/23/2018 11:14 AM, Manu wrote: > >> This happened to me again on Tuesday this week... > > > > All bugzilla requires is a

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 18:09:01 UTC, Manu wrote: [snip] Like, in this particular project, being able to generate all tables at compile time is the thing that distinguishes the D code from the C++ code; it's the *whole point*... If I have to continue to generate tables offline and paste

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/23/2018 11:09 AM, Manu wrote: [...] You make some good points. The CTFE one is kinda inexcusable on our part, because it was trivial to implement (just more or less add some table entries and some glue copying existing examples), and there were posts after posts here and on bugzilla

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23 March 2018 at 12:02, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 3/23/2018 11:14 AM, Manu wrote: >> >> I can echo this experience. I think only two colleagues (out of quite >> a lot) of mine have ever created a bugzilla account. >> Most of them get to the point

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/23/2018 11:14 AM, Manu wrote: I can echo this experience. I think only two colleagues (out of quite a lot) of mine have ever created a bugzilla account. Most of them get to the point where they see a website that looks like it's from the 90's and it wants you to create

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23 March 2018 at 11:24, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 3/23/2018 8:15 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51664 > > > The money shot: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51664#c3 Thing is, C++ has nothing

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/23/2018 8:15 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51664 The money shot: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51664#c3

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23 March 2018 at 03:16, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 3/17/2018 9:25 PM, Manu wrote: >> >> What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? > > > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8071 Best PR this year! >> It's one of those

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23 March 2018 at 02:37, Norm via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > Looking at bugzilla I see this is also now fixed but we were on 2.074 at the > time. Sorry I don't have more specific details, it was hard enough just to > get some devs to create bugzilla accounts let alone

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23 March 2018 at 01:36, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 03/23/2018 03:35 AM, Jordan Wilson wrote: >> >> >> I suppose it's about finding that balance between growing the D user base, >> and trying to get said user base to give back. >> >>

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 23.03.2018 13:06, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 09:37:26 UTC, Norm wrote: I think the main reason for this is because they expect a C++/Python like experience where your rarely hit a compiler/interpreter bug. What happens if they found a bug in C++ or Python? --

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 09:37:26 UTC, Norm wrote: I think the main reason for this is because they expect a C++/Python like experience where your rarely hit a compiler/interpreter bug. Cheers, Norm What do you mean? https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?component=c%2B%2B=gcc=---

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 09:37:26 UTC, Norm wrote: I think the main reason for this is because they expect a C++/Python like experience where your rarely hit a compiler/interpreter bug. What happens if they found a bug in C++ or Python? -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/17/2018 9:25 PM, Manu wrote: What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8071 It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years. It's one that seems to engender lots of comments, but no action. (BTW, there's

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote: What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years. Well, there is this PR :

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 05:24:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/22/2018 9:15 PM, Norm wrote: On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 03:28:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: What are the bugzilla issues on those? This is just a few cut-paste from the collated list. Some were reported but found later to

[Issue 16474] CTFE pow

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16474 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 03/23/2018 03:35 AM, Jordan Wilson wrote: I suppose it's about finding that balance between growing the D user base, and trying to get said user base to give back. Say I was offered a car with no windscreen...I have 3 responses: 1. Cool! I'll put in a windscreen myself, as this car has a

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 01:49:30 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: On 03/22/2018 09:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, March 22, 2018 21:25:11 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 03/18/2018 11:43 PM, Norm wrote: We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/22/2018 9:15 PM, Norm wrote: On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 03:28:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: What are the bugzilla issues on those? This is just a few cut-paste from the collated list. Some were reported but found later to be duplicates, many were existing bugs, so no new bugzilla was

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 03:28:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/18/2018 7:56 PM, Norm wrote: My workplace has stopped using D after a 6 month trial, which finished in Jan 2018. Several developers did post here during that period when blocked by a bug or incomplete feature, only to be told

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 3/18/2018 7:56 PM, Norm wrote: My workplace has stopped using D after a 6 month trial, which finished in Jan 2018. Several developers did post here during that period when blocked by a bug or incomplete feature, only to be told if they want it fixed they can always submit a PR. What are

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 01:43:49 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: On 03/18/2018 11:28 PM, Manu wrote: I know these feels so well. People take their one experience, and that's the truth on the matter. The sad part is, it's actually a massive missed opportunity! If these colleagues

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 02:42:12 UTC, Manu wrote: Small companies are often at a resource-shortage as it is... they probably wouldn't be looking for potential productivity increase opportunities (like using D instead of C) if that wasn't the case. IMO we need to be honest with them so

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 22 March 2018 at 18:25, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 03/18/2018 11:43 PM, Norm wrote: >> >> >> We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to give back. This is >> the *entire* point. >> > > An attitude like that and there's any

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 03/22/2018 09:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: On 03/18/2018 11:28 PM, Manu wrote: I know these feels so well. People take their one experience, and that's the truth on the matter. The sad part is, it's actually a massive missed opportunity! If these colleagues posted here, and

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 03/22/2018 09:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, March 22, 2018 21:25:11 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 03/18/2018 11:43 PM, Norm wrote: We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to give back. This is the *entire* point. An attitude like that and there's

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 03/18/2018 11:28 PM, Manu wrote: I know these feels so well. People take their one experience, and that's the truth on the matter. The sad part is, it's actually a massive missed opportunity! If these colleagues posted here, and instead were greeted by recognition of their issue, and

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 21:25:11 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 03/18/2018 11:43 PM, Norm wrote: > > We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to give back. This is > > the *entire* point. > > An attitude like that and there's any wonder it didn't work out? Sheesh. >

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 03/18/2018 11:43 PM, Norm wrote: We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to give back. This is the *entire* point. An attitude like that and there's any wonder it didn't work out? Sheesh. This is the thing about OSS: The business willing to give back (and there are many

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 19 March 2018 at 13:00, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 2018-03-19 01:00, Manu wrote: > >> It's not aggression, it's a decade of compounded frustration. > > > Perhaps you can give this a try: >

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 2018-03-19 01:00, Manu wrote: It's not aggression, it's a decade of compounded frustration. Perhaps you can give this a try: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ojxxjixcxnztmssky...@forum.dlang.org -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 05:27:20 UTC, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 04:15:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote: [...] You just said the magic

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 21:34, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 01:15:28 UTC, Manu wrote: > >> Or hire staff who are paid to work on 'boring' issues. I would make >> regular donations if I could be satisfied that my decade old issues would

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 04:15:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: Did they at any point

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 01:15:28 UTC, Manu wrote: Or hire staff who are paid to work on 'boring' issues. I would make regular donations if I could be satisfied that my decade old issues would be addressed. I wonder how many others would too? That's actually possible now for corporate

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 19/03/2018 5:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, March 19, 2018 17:15:26 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: You just said the magic word, medical. D was never an appropriate

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 02:56:32 UTC, Norm wrote: +1024 bytes I think D is a terrific language worthy of all the praise it gets and it is way way more stable than it was 3yrs ago. But the attitude of submit a PR if you want it fixed works very much against D. Like it or not these forums

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, March 19, 2018 17:15:26 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote: > > On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: > >> You just said the magic word, medical. > >> > >> D was never an appropriate fit here. > >> > >> dmd's backend

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your company who was trialing D?

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

The volunteer line is fine for big picture stuff that is going to require a lot of work and planing to get right. Using that for smaller feature requests is going to give the impression that D is lacking in the technical expertise to get anything done, It's often a sign that an open source project

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your company who was trialing D? Because I do not remember once in

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your company who was trialing D? Because I do not remember once in that time period of any one saying this. Walter has gone out of

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your company who was trialing D? Because I do not remember once in that time period of any one saying this. Walter has gone out of his way in the past to help

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 19:56, Norm via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:59:45 UTC, Manu wrote: >> >> On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Perhaps the community simply has different

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 19/03/2018 3:56 PM, Norm wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:59:45 UTC, Manu wrote: On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than you? For example, my Android port has never gotten much

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:59:45 UTC, Manu wrote: On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than you? For example, my Android port has never gotten much use either, which is fine as I

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Sunday, March 18, 2018 18:15:28 Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 18 March 2018 at 17:55, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d > > I definitely agree with this. If the folks fixing stuff don't have the > > same priorities as you, then there's a high risk that what you want to > > be fixed won't

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 18:50, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 19/03/2018 2:38 PM, Manu wrote: >> >> On 18 March 2018 at 18:29, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d >> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 19/03/2018 2:21 PM, Manu wrote:

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 19/03/2018 2:38 PM, Manu wrote: On 18 March 2018 at 18:29, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 19/03/2018 2:21 PM, Manu wrote: On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: For those not in the

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 18:29, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 19/03/2018 2:21 PM, Manu wrote: >> >> On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d >> wrote: >>> >>> For those not in the know, Manu is special.

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 19/03/2018 2:21 PM, Manu wrote: On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: For those not in the know, Manu is special. He is in essence a use case for D himself. We really should be trying to make him happy in terms of blockers. It's

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 18:15, Manu wrote: > On 18 March 2018 at 17:55, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d > wrote: >> On Monday, March 19, 2018 00:28:15 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: >>> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote: >>> >

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 18:11, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: > For those not in the know, Manu is special. > > He is in essence a use case for D himself. > > We really should be trying to make him happy in terms of blockers. > It's just good business sense. >

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 17:55, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, March 19, 2018 00:28:15 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote: >> > On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote: >> >>

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

For those not in the know, Manu is special. He is in essence a use case for D himself. We really should be trying to make him happy in terms of blockers. It's just good business sense. Shame we can't throw money at him, he would have great ROI value.

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 17:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than you? For example, > my Android port has never gotten much use either, which is fine as I > primarily did that work for myself. > > Nevertheless,

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, March 19, 2018 00:28:15 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote: > > On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote: > >> [...] > > > > I want to just justify my apparent over-reaction... I think I'm > > not > > the only one

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote: On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote: [...] I want to just justify my apparent over-reaction... I think I'm not the only one that feels this way fairly often. Something that seems trivial only invokes over-reaction

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu wrote: > On 18 March 2018 at 02:19, Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d > wrote: >> On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote: >>> >>> What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use?

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 02:19, Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote: >> >> What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? >> It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... >>

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 06:57, Rubn via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > There was a PR a while ago IIRC, it's probably one of those sitting at the > back of the queue from 4 years ago or something. Unacceptable if true.

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On 18 March 2018 at 00:47, Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote: >> >> What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? >> It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... >>

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:37:32 UTC, ketmar wrote: Manu wrote: What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years. nobody bothered. it is

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 07:47:24 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote: What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... It's one of those blocker bugs that's been

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote: What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years. It's been available in LDC since 1.6.0.

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote: What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years. Not all that

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 04:25:48 UTC, Manu wrote: What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years. Not all that much. Can you give me an

Re: CTFE ^^ (pow)

Manu wrote: What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years. nobody bothered. it is all done by intercepting calls in CTFE engine (using FQN

CTFE ^^ (pow)

What is so hard about implementing a pow intrinsic that CTFE can use? It's ridiculous that we can't CTFE any non-linear function... It's one of those blocker bugs that's been there almost 10 years.

[Issue 16474] CTFE pow

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16474 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org

[Issue 16474] CTFE pow

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16474 ki...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ki...@gmx.net --- Comment #11 from

[Issue 16474] CTFE pow

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16474 --- Comment #10 from uplink.co...@googlemail.com --- (In reply to kinke from comment #9) > > So how does newCTFE interact with CTFloat at the moment? This is an > important piece for cross-compilers. And is there an estimate for when > newCTFE will

  1   2   >