On Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 11:50:40 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
tuple map and array are all pretty expensive.
please profile.
Well a bit more compile time isn't the end of the world, and by
far not the only metric (e.g. readability and maintainability
also rank high). You're slightly obsessed
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 20:44:13 UTC, Enamex wrote:
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 22:02:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
How about this (if I'm not mistaken, this's only one template
instantiation per tuple-type):
[...]
tuple map and array are all pretty expensive.
please profile.
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 19:26:05 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 21:17:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Some time ago, I wrote about the X Macro in C:
https://digitalmars.com/articles/b51.html
I used it from time to time in C code. It's one of the things
I actually
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 22:02:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/20/2017 2:21 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Please tell me this is not going to get into dmd :)
templates are so much more expensive then macros.
(Well, for now :) )
Those templates can and should be replaced by CTFE.
If you like,
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 21:17:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Some time ago, I wrote about the X Macro in C:
https://digitalmars.com/articles/b51.html
I used it from time to time in C code. It's one of the things I
actually like about the C preprocessor. But in translating the
aged C
On 2017-07-21 14:27, Olivier FAURE wrote:
Quick questions: isn't it possible to do
private __gshared const(char)*[24] pseudotab = Y.map!(x => x.id);
instead? That seems like the most obvious and easy to read option; and
in contrast to the other solutions proposed, it's closer to the Rule
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 12:27:35 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
private __gshared const(char)*[24] pseudotab = Y.map!(x =>
x.id);
I meant
private __gshared static immutable string[Y.length]
pseudotab = Y.map!(x => x.id);
but you get my point.
Also, upon trying it, it doesn't
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 08:06:09 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
My pleasure :)
// ...
mixin((){
// ...
enum Y = [
// id reg mask ty
X("AH", 4, mAX, TYuchar),
X("AL", 0, mAX, TYuchar),
X("AX", 8, mAX, TYushort),
X("BH", 7, mBX,
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 11:19:47 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
In C there's no point in the X macro anymore since C99.
Designated initializer allow to do it properly[1] now.
enum COLORS { red, blue, green, max };
char *cstring[max] = {[red]="red", [blue]="blue",
[green]="green" };
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 21:17:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Some time ago, I wrote about the X Macro in C:
https://digitalmars.com/articles/b51.html
I used it from time to time in C code. It's one of the things I
actually like about the C preprocessor. But in translating the
aged C
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 21:17:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Some time ago, I wrote about the X Macro in C:
https://digitalmars.com/articles/b51.html
I used it from time to time in C code. It's one of the things I
actually like about the C preprocessor. But in translating the
aged C
On 2017-07-21 10:25, Stefan Koch wrote:
and leaves bloat in the binary.
Perhaps that should be fixed in the compiler ;)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 08:12:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2017-07-21 00:02, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/20/2017 2:21 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Please tell me this is not going to get into dmd :)
templates are so much more expensive then macros.
(Well, for now :) )
Those templates can and
On 2017-07-21 10:06, Stefan Koch wrote:
My pleasure :)
My approach, without string mixin:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/oksd27$1li9$1...@digitalmars.com :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2017-07-21 00:02, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/20/2017 2:21 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Please tell me this is not going to get into dmd :)
templates are so much more expensive then macros.
(Well, for now :) )
Those templates can and should be replaced by CTFE.
If you like, present the CTFE
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 22:02:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/20/2017 2:21 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Please tell me this is not going to get into dmd :)
templates are so much more expensive then macros.
(Well, for now :) )
Those templates can and should be replaced by CTFE.
If you like,
On 7/20/2017 2:21 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Please tell me this is not going to get into dmd :)
templates are so much more expensive then macros.
(Well, for now :) )
Those templates can and should be replaced by CTFE.
If you like, present the CTFE solution. Should be fun!
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 21:17:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
template Y(alias X)
{
enum Y =
[
// id reg mask ty
X!("AH", 4, mAX, TYuchar),
X!("AL", 0, mAX, TYuchar),
X!("AX", 8, mAX, TYushort),
X!("BH", 7, mBX, TYuchar),
Some time ago, I wrote about the X Macro in C:
https://digitalmars.com/articles/b51.html
I used it from time to time in C code. It's one of the things I actually like
about the C preprocessor. But in translating the aged C code to D it was time to
make X work in D. Here's the C code,
19 matches
Mail list logo
