On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 19:54:13 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 15:06:44 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
The problem is the default template parameter Flag!"unsafe",
because fqn makes it into "cast(Flag)".
Getting this right is a bit tricky.
Isn't it a problem with library
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 15:06:44 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 10:19:21 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 09/29/2016 07:02 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
[...]
What are the issues with fullyQualifiedName in that context? I
mean other than Voldemort types of course. I'd
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 at 10:19:21 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 09/29/2016 07:02 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
[...]
What are the issues with fullyQualifiedName in that context? I
mean other than Voldemort types of course. I'd expect `static
import` + `fullyQualifiedName` combo to be reasonably
On 09/29/2016 07:02 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 13:58:44 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
>> Any chance to get this one working:
>>
>> import std.typecons;
>>
>> enum Stuff
>> {
>> asdf,
>> }
>>
>> void main()
>> {
>> BitFlags!Stuff a;
>>
On 09/29/2016 03:27 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 16.09.2016 01:10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/15/16 7:08 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yes, that DIP. It would need some more formal work before defining an
implementation. Stefan, would you want to lead that effort? -- Andrei
Actually I see
On 16.09.2016 01:25, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 23:08:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yes, that DIP. It would need some more formal work before defining an
implementation. Stefan, would you want to lead that effort? -- Andrei
I am not good at defining semantics,
On 16.09.2016 01:10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/15/16 7:08 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yes, that DIP. It would need some more formal work before defining an
implementation. Stefan, would you want to lead that effort? -- Andrei
Actually I see Timon authored that (I thought it's an
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 16:30:56 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
The problem is you can never know all the use cases of some
feature. It is just pointless to try to predict where a user
will need a feature. I had a use case where I could be sure
that everything needed is imported and
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 16:02:53 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
This wouldn't be a correct use of the feature anyway, since it
runs into all sorts of fundamental issues with imports/scoping,
aliases and templates. Using .stringof/fullyQualifiedName to
generate a reference to a type or
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 14:49:03 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
The reason why this fails is because of the cast(Flag) which
should be cast(Flag!"unsafe").
I can probably make it work tough,
that means more special casing :)
Yes, I know. See this topic for the first discussion:
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 13:58:44 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
Any chance to get this one working:
import std.typecons;
enum Stuff
{
asdf,
}
void main()
{
BitFlags!Stuff a;
mixin(__traits(fullyQualifiedName, typeof(a)) ~ " c;");
}
This wouldn't be a correct
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 13:58:44 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:28:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I would like to see users of fullyQualifiedName because apart
from binderoo code which
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:28:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I would like to see users of fullyQualifiedName because apart
from binderoo code which seems to work, I have none.
That was supposed to say : I would like
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I am going to submit a PR soon.
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6134
Here it is.
On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 00:57:13 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
When polished CTFE can totally be used as a serious workhorse
for cases that would have fallen intro the static foreach
category.
When you get your polished CTFE finished, you might consider a
blog post on it (including an
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 23:25:34 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 23:08:54 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Yes, that DIP.[http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP57] It would need some
more formal work before defining an implementation. Stefan,
would you want to lead that
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 23:08:54 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Yes, that DIP. It would need some more formal work before
defining an implementation. Stefan, would you want to lead that
effort? -- Andrei
I am not good at defining semantics, yet I would participate in a
joint
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 22:58:12 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
The Performance-Penalty will be less then on templates.
Let me add a disclaimer, I _think_ the performance penalty _can_
be less then the penalty on templates.
Also static if can sometimes lead to counter-intuitive situations,
On 9/15/16 7:08 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yes, that DIP. It would need some more formal work before defining an
implementation. Stefan, would you want to lead that effort? -- Andrei
Actually I see Timon authored that (I thought it's an older DIP by
Walter). Timon, would you want to
On 9/15/16 6:58 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 14:43:16 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 14:38:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/15/2016 10:08 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
static foreach on the other hand is a whole new can of worms.
As
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 14:43:16 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 14:38:41 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 09/15/2016 10:08 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
static foreach on the other hand is a whole new can of worms.
As walter will be able to tell you.
It's time
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 14:38:41 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 09/15/2016 10:08 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
static foreach on the other hand is a whole new can of worms.
As walter will be able to tell you.
It's time to open it. -- Andrei
Please give me an example on how it should
On 09/15/2016 10:08 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
static foreach on the other hand is a whole new can of worms.
As walter will be able to tell you.
It's time to open it. -- Andrei
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 13:49:46 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 09/15/2016 09:27 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 13:20:16 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 09/15/2016 08:35 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 12:26:08 UTC, Andrei
On 09/15/2016 09:27 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 13:20:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 09/15/2016 08:35 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 12:26:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Apparently we need that static foreach iteration. --
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 13:20:16 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 09/15/2016 08:35 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 12:26:08 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Apparently we need that static foreach iteration. -- Andrei
What exactly do you mean ?
As long as
On 09/15/2016 08:35 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 12:26:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Apparently we need that static foreach iteration. -- Andrei
What exactly do you mean ?
As long as we instanciate n templates for a member nested n levels the
overhead is
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 12:26:08 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Apparently we need that static foreach iteration. -- Andrei
What exactly do you mean ?
As long as we instanciate n templates for a member nested n
levels the overhead is massive!
How would static foreach help ?
On 09/14/2016 05:50 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 21:06:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 09/14/2016 04:52 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
[...]
(Disclaimer: I didn't run any speed tests.) By looking at the
definition of fullyQualifiedName it seems to me we can go a
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 06:08:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
mixin("alias T2 = " ~ fqn!T);
static assert(is(T2 == T));
In that sense builtin trait could be a better option.
Yes a builtin trait is the better option.
I made a youtube video about that.
Showing you how bad FullyQualifiedName
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:28:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I would like to see users of fullyQualifiedName because apart
from binderoo code which seems to work, I have none.
That was supposed to say : I would like
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:28:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I would like to see users of fullyQualifiedName because apart
from binderoo code which seems to work, I have none.
That was supposed to say : I would like
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 22:48:29 UTC, Pierre Krafft
wrote:
I've had to use fullyQualifiedName in some string mixins.
Unless there is more to the example than what meets the eye, "had
to" isn't quite true, and even with the `import moduleName!…`
hack, your code is still
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I would like to see users of fullyQualifiedName because apart
from binderoo code which seems to work, I have none.
I've had to use fullyQualifiedName in some string mixins. Take a
look at
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 21:06:10 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 09/14/2016 04:52 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
[...]
(Disclaimer: I didn't run any speed tests.) By looking at the
definition of fullyQualifiedName it seems to me we can go a
long way with traditional optimization
On 09/14/2016 04:52 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
It takes a whooping 500 milliseconds
Ahm... I misread my performance graph
it's 138ms for the first instanciation.
and around 5ms for every following one.
the total time spent on it
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
It takes a whooping 500 milliseconds
Ahm... I misread my performance graph
it's 138ms for the first instanciation.
and around 5ms for every following one.
the total time spent on it was 500ms
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I would like to see users of fullyQualifiedName because apart
from binderoo code which seems to work, I have none.
That was supposed to say : I would like to see [test cases from]
users of fullyQulifiedName.
Hi Guys,
I recently had a closer look at the templates that cost the most
time to instantiate in the frontend.
and there is one clear winner.
FullyQualified name from std.traits.
It takes a whooping 500 milliseconds(on my test-case) for it's
semantic phase.
this is because this template is
39 matches
Mail list logo
