On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 20:50:25 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Consider that there are many optimizations that rely on fp not
being predictable. For instance, fabs(x) can be transformed
into x | 0x8000 if you don't care about NaN's sign (yes,
NaN are signed).
I guess that would be
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 08:24:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 at 20:15:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2016 3:33 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
But would it really have an effect if I wrote a DIP on
getting predictable
floating point behaviour? If there is
On Monday, 13 June 2016 at 20:15:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2016 3:33 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
But would it really have an effect if I wrote a DIP on getting
predictable
floating point behaviour? If there is a chance that it would,
then I might
consider it :-).
I encourage
On 6/13/2016 3:33 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
But would it really have an effect if I wrote a DIP on getting predictable
floating point behaviour? If there is a chance that it would, then I might
consider it :-).
I encourage you to consider it.
On 6/12/16 3:48 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2016 11:50 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Your are very correct about importance of link stability though. What
comes to my mind immediately is to store all DIPs in same folder but
keep Approved/Implementec/etc as folders containing symlinks to the
merged
On 06/12/2016 09:58 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 June 2016 at 18:50:06 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Your are very correct about importance of link stability though. What
>> comes to my mind immediately is to store all DIPs in same folder but
>> keep Approved/Implementec/etc as folders
On Sunday, 12 June 2016 at 19:51:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Consider: would you ever have noticed a n.g. posting written by
Alex in 2012?
But would it really have an effect if I wrote a DIP on getting
predictable floating point behaviour? If there is a chance that
it would, then I might
On 6/10/2016 9:38 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 15:37:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
DIP 20 by Alex Rønne Petersen in 2012
Alex is a member of Phobos, druntime, dlang.org, and tools team.
Aww, apologies to Alex :-)
Modifying the compiler might be more
On 6/12/2016 11:50 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Your are very correct about importance of link stability though. What
comes to my mind immediately is to store all DIPs in same folder but
keep Approved/Implementec/etc as folders containing symlinks to the
merged one (git stores symlinks just fine).
I
On 06/12/2016 09:58 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 June 2016 at 18:50:06 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Your are very correct about importance of link stability though. What
>> comes to my mind immediately is to store all DIPs in same folder but
>> keep Approved/Implementec/etc as folders
On Sunday, 12 June 2016 at 18:50:06 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Your are very correct about importance of link stability
though. What comes to my mind immediately is to store all DIPs
in same folder but keep Approved/Implementec/etc as folders
containing symlinks to the merged one (git stores symlinks
On 06/12/2016 08:19 PM, Guillaume Boucher wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 June 2016 at 12:16:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On 06/09/2016 01:12 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2016 1:47 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I will finish description for proposed process this weekend and send
it to
dmd-internal
On Sunday, 12 June 2016 at 12:16:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 06/09/2016 01:12 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/8/2016 1:47 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I will finish description for proposed process this weekend
and send
it to
dmd-internal mail list.
Cool!
On 06/09/2016 01:12 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/8/2016 1:47 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> I will finish description for proposed process this weekend and send
>> it to
>> dmd-internal mail list.
>
> Cool!
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/d5996d6d-1f8e-2fa7-31a7-177c121a9...@dicebot.lv
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 15:37:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
DIP 20 by Alex Rønne Petersen in 2012
Alex is a member of Phobos, druntime, dlang.org, and tools team.
Aww, apologies to Alex :-)
Modifying the compiler might be more productive than writing a
DIP, then.
On 6/10/16 10:52 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 14:44:22 UTC, Seb wrote:
I don't think that any DIP was proposed by an outsider - the major
problem is that the "Approval" process isn't formal at all, that's why
so many DIPs are "Drafts".
Have a look yourself at the
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 14:44:22 UTC, Seb wrote:
I don't think that any DIP was proposed by an outsider - the
major problem is that the "Approval" process isn't formal at
all, that's why so many DIPs are "Drafts".
Have a look yourself at the DIP wiki: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP
Hm, were
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 14:38:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 10:38:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-06-09 23:34, Walter Bright wrote:
That doesn't stop anyone from commenting on them, offering
improvements,
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 10:38:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-06-09 23:34, Walter Bright wrote:
That doesn't stop anyone from commenting on them, offering
improvements,
doing some promotion of them, organizing handling them, etc.
If
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 10:38:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-06-09 23:34, Walter Bright wrote:
That doesn't stop anyone from commenting on them, offering
improvements,
doing some promotion of them, organizing handling them, etc.
If
On 6/10/16 9:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-06-09 23:34, Walter Bright wrote:
That doesn't stop anyone from commenting on them, offering improvements,
doing some promotion of them, organizing handling them, etc.
If feel that's a bit pointless if no one with some form of authority
will
On 2016-06-09 23:34, Walter Bright wrote:
That doesn't stop anyone from commenting on them, offering improvements,
doing some promotion of them, organizing handling them, etc.
If feel that's a bit pointless if no one with some form of authority
will look at it.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 6/9/2016 5:10 PM, deadalnix wrote:
It is not clear where to comment to begin with.
There's a space in the table for a link to n.g. discussion.
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 21:34:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/9/2016 4:49 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
The problem with the DIP's is that, by definition, it's
something that needs
your or Andrei's approval. Therefore it's not possible to
leave it completely
for someone else to deal with.
On 6/9/2016 6:54 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 19:59:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A DIP not being dealt with does not mean it is a bad idea. It pretty much
means we just aren't ready to deal with it at the moment. It's time may not
have come yet. But it's not going away, it'll
On 6/9/2016 4:49 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
The problem with the DIP's is that, by definition, it's something that needs
your or Andrei's approval. Therefore it's not possible to leave it completely
for someone else to deal with.
That doesn't stop anyone from commenting on them, offering
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 19:59:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A DIP not being dealt with does not mean it is a bad idea. It
pretty much means we just aren't ready to deal with it at the
moment. It's time may not have come yet. But it's not going
away, it'll still be there when needed. I've
On 2016-06-08 22:44, Walter Bright wrote:
I agree we should do better, I certainly welcome any efforts you're
willing to devote to this. Most of the huge improvements in process in D
have come about precisely because someone selected himself to take
charge of the matter and make the required
On 6/8/2016 1:47 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I will finish description for proposed process this weekend and send it to
dmd-internal mail list.
Cool!
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 21:15:20 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 19:59:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/7/2016 1:32 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
a lousy 28% of DIPs are either definitively closed or
accepted.
I understand that is frustrating. It happens to mine as well,
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 19:59:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/7/2016 1:32 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
a lousy 28% of DIPs are either definitively closed or accepted.
I understand that is frustrating. It happens to mine as well,
though I am less bothered by it.
It's a question of
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 20:44:10 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I agree we should do better, I certainly welcome any efforts
you're willing to devote to this. Most of the huge improvements
in process in D have come about precisely because someone
selected himself to take charge of the matter
On 6/8/2016 1:37 PM, Pie? wrote:
How about everyone stop working on "new features" and try to make D solid?
This does get repeatedly proposed, usually along with "just add this one more
feature" :-(
There aren't any easy answers.
On 6/8/2016 1:22 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I believe it is big mistake to treat DIPs as a creative idea database.
Most importantly because it diminishes motivation to put real effort
into working on the DIP as opposed to just quickly throwing something on
the table and moving on. Sure, those are useful
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 19:59:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/7/2016 1:32 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
a lousy 28% of DIPs are either definitively closed or accepted.
There are currently 34 issues on it, where we implemented a
feature and inadvertently broke something. There are constant
I believe it is big mistake to treat DIPs as a creative idea database.
Most importantly because it diminishes motivation to put real effort
into working on the DIP as opposed to just quickly throwing something on
the table and moving on. Sure, those are useful for that purpose too,
but focusing on
On 6/7/2016 1:32 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
a lousy 28% of DIPs are either definitively closed or accepted.
I understand that is frustrating. It happens to mine as well, though I am less
bothered by it.
It's a question of framing.
Consider the regression list:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 20:32:54 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 19:52:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
If you want to take charge of writing such a specification
DIP, please do so.
There's a reason why people resort to talking in the forms
rather than write a DIP. It's
38 matches
Mail list logo
