In the download page, table shows for which CPU type they are
available.
dmd.2.065.0.zip shows i386 and x86_64. So, this should run on 32
and 64-bits.
dmd.2.065.0.dmg shows only x86_64 which is for 64-bit CPU only.
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 04:25:38 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
So building from
On 13 June 2014 14:14, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>> Some forward ranges don't have a known length, and can only be summed
>> by an iteration sweep.
>
>
> http://dlang.org/phobos/std_range.html#.walkLength
That's inefficient, I might as well perform the iteration while I'm
wal
So building from source seemed to work. Is it possible that the
OSX version of DMD was released as a 64 bit version?
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 03:53:30 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
Just tried downloading the .zip instead of using the installer.
I got the same problem. I also tried downloading 2.0
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:49:46 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 13 June 2014 13:29, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:04:08 -0400, Daniel Murphy
wrote:
"Manu via Digitalmars-d" wrote in message
and
personally, I would expect an 'unreferenced
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:55:20 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 13 June 2014 13:42, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:34:27 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 13 June 2014 13:04, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
i,j,k,etc work just f
On 13 June 2014 13:42, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:34:27 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>
>> On 13 June 2014 13:04, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> i,j,k,etc work just fine. Are you really nesting your loops that deeply?
>
Just tried downloading the .zip instead of using the installer. I
got the same problem. I also tried downloading 2.064, and again I
got the same error message. I did notice that not everything give
me the Bad CPU Type error message. I'll try building from source
and see how that goes.
On Thu
On 13 June 2014 13:29, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:04:08 -0400, Daniel Murphy
> wrote:
>
>> "Manu via Digitalmars-d" wrote in message
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> personally, I would expect an 'unreferenced variable' warning for the
>>> unused loop counter. I li
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:34:27 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 13 June 2014 13:04, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
i,j,k,etc work just fine. Are you really nesting your loops that
deeply?
Giving explicit names pollutes the local namespace, and the point
below about unrefe
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:26:34 +1000
Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> It gets awkward when you nest, using '_' leads to '__', and
> personally, I would expect an 'unreferenced variable' warning for the
> unused loop counter. I like warnings hassling me about unused
> variables.
I don't expect that
Hi,
Since I become a D fan, I decided to come up with a logo designs
for this awesome language. If you like one of these designs and
require some modifications then send me your feedbacks so I can
update it accordingly.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_LJS0oMStiPLUQ5bDJBeGJlNmc/edit?usp=sh
On 13 June 2014 13:04, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> "Manu via Digitalmars-d" wrote in message
> news:mailman.2111.1402626404.2907.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
>
>> It gets awkward when you nest, using '_' leads to '__',
>
>
> i,j,k,etc work just fine. Are you really nesting your
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:04:08 -0400, Daniel Murphy
wrote:
"Manu via Digitalmars-d" wrote in message
and
personally, I would expect an 'unreferenced variable' warning for the
unused loop counter. I like warnings hassling me about unused
variables.
This is a good point.
In this case, it's
"Manu via Digitalmars-d" wrote in message
news:mailman.2111.1402626404.2907.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
It gets awkward when you nest, using '_' leads to '__',
i,j,k,etc work just fine. Are you really nesting your loops that deeply?
and
personally, I would expect an 'unreferenced varia
On 13 June 2014 04:04, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 11:00 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> I often find myself wanting to write this:
>>foreach(; 0..n) {}
>> In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
>> actually care about the loop count
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:22:25 -0400, Kapps wrote:
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 10:04:35 UTC, Robert Schadek via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Currently I have problems with my Logger PR. It magically fails from
time to time.
Whenever it fails std.socket fails with:
"Open file hard limit too low"
As f
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.xhcx4cb9eav7ka@stevens-macbook-pro-2.local...
I don't think it's as trivial as you imply. You have to use a symbol
that's valid, but isn't used in the subsequent loop to avoid collisions.
It is trivial, the frontend already has the ability to g
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 10:04:35 UTC, Robert Schadek via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Currently I have problems with my Logger PR. It magically fails
from
time to time.
Whenever it fails std.socket fails with:
"Open file hard limit too low"
As far as I can see that is why my tests fail as well. I
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/839
Yes, I know others are interested in this, too!
On 6/12/2014 8:36 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
You normally do that by using names that the grammar doesn't allow as
valid identifiers. Then you have a counter and prepend that. This way
you never have name collisions.
And doesn't DMD *already* do a lot of that sorta thing already?
On 6/12/14, 5:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:26:31 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 6/12/2014 3:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Sorry, saving 1-2 characters typing is really minor. This does not, in
my opinion of course, have any significant improvement on usabi
12-Jun-2014 10:34, Rainer Schuetze пишет:
On 11.06.2014 18:59, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
03-Jun-2014 11:35, Rainer Schuetze пишет:
Hi,
more GC talk: the last couple of days, I've been experimenting with
implementing a concurrent GC on Windows inspired by Leandros CDGC.
Here's a report on my ex
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 22:38:26 UTC, Daniel Kozák via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
V Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:33:37 -0300
No problem for me:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23950796/how-to-repeat-a-statement-n-times-simple-loop/23952012#23952012
That is sweet. Well done.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:41:36 -0400, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/12/2014 10:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I don't think it's as trivial as you imply. You have to use a symbol
that's valid, but isn't used in the subsequent loop to avoid collisions.
-Steve
Why would implicit local variable
I wanted to try out OSX to make sure all my stuff was working
fine there as well, but after downloading DMD and then running it
in the terminal to make sure everything was good it gives me this
error:
/usr/bin/dmd: Bad CPU type in executable
This is my first time using a Mac, so I could very
V Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:33:37 -0300
Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d napsáno:
> On 6/12/14, 3:04 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On 6/12/2014 11:00 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> I often find myself wanting to write this:
> >>foreach(; 0..n) {}
> >> In the case that I just want to do so
On 6/12/2014 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:26:31 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
While I agree on its triviality, I really doubt there's much "weight"
to speak of either. Hara probably could've already implemented and
tested this in the same amount of time any *one*
On 06/12/2014 10:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I don't think it's as trivial as you imply. You have to use a symbol
that's valid, but isn't used in the subsequent loop to avoid collisions.
-Steve
Why would implicit local variables need unique names? This can be
implemented by preventi
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:00:20 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.
You can do this:
for(;;) {}
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 19:38:06 UTC, André wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to add a newsgroup for DGui on this forum? It
would be great to have a communication platform and also
advertising this really great Windows ui toolkit. With an easy
to
use and powerful native D ui toolkit like DGui a lo
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:26:31 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 6/12/2014 3:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Sorry, saving 1-2 characters typing is really minor. This does not, in
my opinion of course, have any significant improvement on usability for
D. It simply does not carry it's own we
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 19:26:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
FWIW: I think this can be viewed more as "Lifting undue
restrictions".
For what it's worth, if any work is done on foreach, +1000 I
think we should tackle the "important" issues first, such as:
auto ref for foreach loops
htt
Hi,
Is it possible to add a newsgroup for DGui on this forum? It
would be great to have a communication platform and also
advertising this really great Windows ui toolkit. With an easy to
use and powerful native D ui toolkit like DGui a lot of new D
developers can be reached and attracted.
Kind re
On 6/12/2014 3:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Sorry, saving 1-2 characters typing is really minor. This does not, in
my opinion of course, have any significant improvement on usability for
D. It simply does not carry it's own weight, and the potential to create
bugs in the foreach handling w
On 6/12/2014 2:33 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 6/12/14, 3:04 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 6/12/2014 11:00 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
actually care about the
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 18:33:38 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 6/12/14, 3:04 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
In Ruby/Crystal you can do:
n.times do
# code
end
In D you have to write:
for(unused; 0..n) {
# code
}
Doesn't it bother you that your language requires more typing
and defining
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:55:52 -0400, Andrew Edwards
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 2:40 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:36:20 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 2:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:00:11 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I of
On 6/12/14, 2:40 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:36:20 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 2:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:00:11 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:36:20 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 2:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:00:11 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n time
On 6/12/14, 3:04 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 6/12/2014 11:00 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.
You
On 6/12/2014 11:00 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.
You can do this:
for(;;) {}
If 'for' lets you
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:56:17 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On 06/12/2014 05:46 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:09:51 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
_ is an often used identifier for "i don't care" in many
languages. The
following works:
foreach(_; 0..n)
One issue is that
On 6/12/14, 2:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:00:11 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
actually care about the loop counter, but this doe
On 12/06/2014 17:59, bearophile wrote:
there is also this usage:
foreach (i, _; range){...}
I think this is a very uncommon usage. I think I have not used it so far.
Perhaps with something other than a range then. There are some uses in
Phobos:
std/algorithm.d:foreach (i, _; args)
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 01:11:12PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:00:11 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>
> >I often find myself wanting to write this:
> > foreach(; 0..n) {}
> >In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don'
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:00:11 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.
The compiler has to assign a var
Nick Treleaven:
there is also this usage:
foreach (i, _; range){...}
I think this is a very uncommon usage. I think I have not used it
so far.
Potentially, there's also tuple unpacking syntax:
auto (v, _) = myTuple; // throw away second element
This is a very important usage. Worthin
On 12/06/2014 16:57, simendsjo wrote:
On 06/12/2014 05:46 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:09:51 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
_ is an often used identifier for "i don't care" in many languages. The
following works:
foreach(_; 0..n)
One issue is that "_" is still an actual
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:56:17 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
Yeah, not good. Does any sane person use _ as a variable
identifier and
then reference it? A breaking change would be a special rule so
_ can
never be used and is allowed to shadow. Of course - this could
break
existing code, so it wi
On 06/12/2014 05:46 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:09:51 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
>>
>> _ is an often used identifier for "i don't care" in many languages. The
>> following works:
>> foreach(_; 0..n)
>
> One issue is that "_" is still an actual identifier, with normal na
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:09:51 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
_ is an often used identifier for "i don't care" in many
languages. The
following works:
foreach(_; 0..n)
One issue is that "_" is still an actual identifier, with normal
name collision rules. So that works only once. When you ne
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:14:44 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Manu:
I see no need to declare a superfluous loop counter when it is
unused.
I agree.
What's Walter opinion on this?
Bye,
bearophile
Enhancement request filed last year:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9009
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 22:20:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I've got an enhancement request to have it behave like
extern(C):
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12894
Thoughts? Anyone use extern(Windows) on non-Windows systems?
That example of "I want this calling convention o
Manu:
I see no need to declare a superfluous loop counter when it is
unused.
I agree.
What's Walter opinion on this?
Bye,
bearophile
On 06/12/2014 05:00 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I often find myself wanting to write this:
> foreach(; 0..n) {}
> In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
> actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.
>
> You can do this:
> for(;;) {}
>
> If
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 15:00:20 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.
You can do this:
for(;;) {}
On 2014-06-10 5:53 AM, Adam Sakareassen via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Hi,
Yes my little GC project is coming along. It allocates much faster in
multi threaded applications when all threads are competing for the lock.
D's current GC is very slow when there is contention for the GC-lock
which is acq
I often find myself wanting to write this:
foreach(; 0..n) {}
In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.
You can do this:
for(;;) {}
If 'for' lets you omit any of the loop terms, surely it makes sense
that f
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:23:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote:
Why private members can't have internal linkage?
It's currently possible to access private symbols through
pointers.
And aliases with different qualifiers. And via return values. And
with pre
On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote:
Why private members can't have internal linkage?
It's currently possible to access private symbols through pointers.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 09:48:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Why private members can't have internal linkage?
tl; dr: because private provides zero guarantees that symbol
won't be referenced in ABI context. It only controls direct
language level access.
It can possibly be done with analysis of
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 23:19:43 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Honestly, I'd first deprecate/remove extern(Pascal), then think
about
deprecating extern(Windows) later.
I agree. Does anyone use extern(Pascal)? It's piece of old
history, and now it's more discouraging than use
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 09:48:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Why private members can't have internal linkage?
There has been some discussion about a few corner cases, see
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jlbsreudrapysiaet...@forum.dlang.org?page=2#post-irrbdrxordjawkryvrub:40forum.dlang.org
and fol
Currently I have problems with my Logger PR. It magically fails from
time to time.
Whenever it fails std.socket fails with:
"Open file hard limit too low"
As far as I can see that is why my tests fail as well. Is this limit a
known problem? Suggestions?
Why private members can't have internal linkage?
Yesterday I discovered that a global static variable in D is just
a global variable, with no special rule about symbol visibility
and such.
I've scrolled quickly through old discussions on the NG and read
the relevant DIP: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22
It seems to me that nobody thought about re
66 matches
Mail list logo
