On Tue, 27 May 2014 06:42:41 -1000
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26m8hy/scott_meyers_dconf_2014_keynote_the_last_thing_d/
https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (search that page, if not
Okay. That seriously got munged. Let's try that again...
On Tue, 27 May 2014 06:42:41 -1000
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26m8hy/scott_meyers_dconf_2014_keynote_the_last_thing_d/
On Wed, 28 May 2014 16:07:08 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
Some of the inconsistencies you mentioned and Brian mentioned in his
talk are actually the result of consistencies.
I know this is a bit of a difficult thing to wrap one's
On Thu, 29 May 2014 08:23:26 +0200
Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
In any case, simply reversing the order for static array types using
an ad-hoc rewrite rule would be a huge wart, even more severe than
the other points you raised, and we
On Thu, 29 May 2014 01:31:44 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 05/29/2014 12:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
So, unfortunately, I think that we're stuck.
You make it sound like there is a problem. ;)
I
On Thu, 29 May 2014 07:32:48 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 05/29/2014 03:00 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
I don't see how you could argue that they don't have
multi-dimensional arrays.
Their specs don't
On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:48:56 +
Chris via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 11:46:35 UTC, w0rp wrote:
I received my copy this morning, earlier than I thought I
would. I shall check it out over the weekend. I suspect I'll
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:00:17 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 6/2/2014 8:46 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
However, what you can't do is change the accent to one that you may
better understand. I know a lot of
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:33:01 +
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:19:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/27911b/conversation_with_andrei_alexandrescu_all_things/
wtf,
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:30:44 +0200
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 6/5/14, 7:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
So let me get this straight: There are programmers out there who
find the occasional type annotations on some declarations
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:51:42 +
Olivier Henley via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
...
Sorry I know its annoying to have someone telling you guys what
to do. I would rather post a sticky thread, referencing Dicebot's
channel, myself but I'm brand new
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:00:39 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 6/13/14, 10:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 6/13/2014 12:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Being able to negate the final:
label is nice to have but not a
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:09:50 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:
D:YAML is a YAML parser and emitter for D.
Thanks a lot for working on this. I actually really hate YAML,
but I'm forced to work with it sometimes, and this library saved
me from having to write a parser for it myself.
- Jonathan
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 17:05:29 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
I've never encountered anybody try and use MSC from the command
line in about 15 years professionally.
LOL. That's almost always how I use VS when I'm forced to use it
at work. As soon as I figured out that I
On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 16:29:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 8/9/2014 10:57 AM, Dicebot wrote:
actually avoided learning anything out of the default comfort
zone and
called that _professional attitude_.
People have some truly bizarre ideas about what constitutes
professionalism. At
On Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 19:14:32 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 8/7/2014 1:05 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
That's what I mean about this culture; it's
the opposite of linux, and it outright rejects practises that
are
linux-like.
While I don't doubt that's true of a lot
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 00:23:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 8/18/2014 7:14 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I also propose to start 2.067 beta branch right now and
declare it yet
another bug-fixing release.
Seconded.
Regardless of whether we start another release going that quickly
or not,
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 04:26:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Well that's what happened - someone started 2.067. What's the
advantage of doing this? Now we need to worry about master and
2.067 instead of just master. -- Andrei
Well, what you do at that point is just fix all of the
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 17:11:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 17:08:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/19/2014 7:01 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Walter, now that release is out can you please state your
opinion about
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3651 ? It
On Thursday, 21 August 2014 at 15:20:49 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote in message
news:lt50m0$20f0$1...@digitalmars.com...
Support for C++ templates was in the last release, and the
new pull
request is only for special mangling of some stl
declarations.
You see, I get
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 08:14:41 UTC, novice2 wrote:
http://dlang.org/changelog.html
Version D 2.066 August 18, 2014
...
Phobos enhancements
1.Bugzilla 3780: getopt improvements by Igor Lesik
Sorry, i can't find this improvements nor in getopt.d nor in
On Thursday, 21 August 2014 at 20:33:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/21/2014 11:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
LOL. Yeah, well, it would be ni going to support C+ce if we
could get an actual
list of the C++ features that D currently supports somewhere
(and how to use
them if it's not
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:00:26 +
Ola Fosheim Gr via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 06:35:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The implementation of it, however, is going to be ugly and very
specific to each C++ compiler. The user
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:44:18 +
safety0ff via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 07:59:16 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
Stop being such a grammar nazi.
I didn't bring it up because I felt like being pedantic, I
brought it up as
On Monday, April 14, 2014 20:47:06 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Another flurry of bounces floated through today (which I handled by removing
the suspensions, again). The only practical choice is a fairly intrusive
one. I've enabled the from_is_list option, meaning that the 'from'
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:21:32 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
Recently, I observed a conversation happening on the github pull
request system.
In phobos, we have the notion of output ranges. One is allowed to
output to an output range by
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:44:13 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:26:29 -0400, Xinok xi...@live.com wrote:
On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 01:57:06 UTC, bearophile wrote:
This is one of the largest problems left in the
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:49:41 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 4/27/2014 11:17 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 27/04/14 21:39, Walter Bright wrote:
std.datetime is a giant kitchen sink. This is not the best way to
organize things. Using smaller
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:45:40 +0200
Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 4/28/14, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
It's my fault as far as std.datetime goes. I had it mostly done last
summer but then didn't have time
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:19:16 +0200
Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 4/28/14, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
Yeah, it is just a random idea I have just had.
I'm afraid you're 7 years too late for that patent. :P
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:59:42 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 4/30/14, 8:54 AM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
A coworker mentioned the idea that unittests could be run in
parallel
In D we have strong purity to make more safe
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:58:34 +
Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Unit tests though, by definition (and I'm aware there are more
than one) have to be independent. Have to not touch the
filesystem, or the network. Only CPU and RAM.
I disagree with this. A
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:26:40 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 4/30/14, 10:50 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
There
is nothing whatsoever in the language which guarantees that running
them in parallel will work or even makes
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:53:22 +
monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 15:54:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
We've resisted named unittests but I think there's enough
evidence to make the change.
Yes, the optional name for unittests
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:09:14 +0100
Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:19 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
unittest blocks just like any other unit test. I would very much
consider std.file's tests to be unit tests
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:33:17 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:48:38PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:09:14 +0100
Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:33:06 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:50:10 -0400, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:59:42 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:35:45 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
Agreed. I think we should look into parallelizing all unittests. --
I'm all for parallelizing all unittest blocks that are pure, as doing
so would be safe, but I think that we're making a
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:32:33 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 4/30/14, 10:01 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I'm all for parallelizing all unittest blocks that are pure, as
doing so would be safe, but I think that we're making
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:56:53 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
I don't think undefined behavior is at stake here, and I find the
simile invalid. Thread isolation is a done deal in D and we may as
well take advantage of it. Worse that could happen is
On Thu, 01 May 2014 07:26:59 +
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 04:50:30 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
std.file's unit tests would break immediately. It wouldn't
surprise me
if std.socket's unit tests broke
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:21:33 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
Walter and I have had a long chat in which we figured our current
offering of abstractions could be improved. Here are some thoughts.
There's a lot of work ahead of us on that and I
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:00:31 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 4/30/14, 1:57 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/30/2014 10:45 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
An extreme one indeed, it would break a lot of my code. Every D
project I wrote that does
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:08:03 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:15:03 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC they do, it's only arrays of such that doesn't. Anyhow having
such a dangerous construct
On Thu, 01 May 2014 10:42:54 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2014 00:49:53 -0400, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:33:06 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
On Thu, 01 May 2014 14:40:41 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 5/1/14, 2:28 PM, Jason Spencer wrote:
But it seems the key question is whether order can EVER be
important for any reason. I for one would be willing to give up
parallelization to
On Thu, 01 May 2014 11:17:09 +
Temtaime via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Hi everyone.
I think it's need to have -w64(or other name, offers ?) flag that
warns if code may not compile on other archs.
Example:
size_t a;
uint b = a; // ok on 32 without a warning but
On Fri, 02 May 2014 15:54:37 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Warnings ARE a built-in lint-like tool.
Perhaps, but having them in the compiler is inherently flawed, because
you have little-to-no control over what it warns about, and you're
forced to
On Fri, 02 May 2014 21:03:15 +
monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 15:06:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
So now it looks like dynamic arrays also can't contain structs
with destructors :o). -- Andrei
Well, that's always been
On Fri, 02 May 2014 22:39:12 +
Meta via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 21:40:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
True, that is a problem. But if folks really want the warnings,
they can go to the extra effort.
Why are we making
On Sat, 03 May 2014 00:50:14 +
Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
We are all sick and tired of this debate, but today I've seen a
question in Stack Exchange's Programmers board that raises a
point I don't recall being discussed here:
On Sat, 03 May 2014 11:00:37 +
w0rp via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
So, I am eager to hear what people think about all of this. Does
anyone like the work that I have done, and will it be useful?
Have I committed some terrible crime against nature, for which I
must be
On Sat, 03 May 2014 22:44:39 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 5/3/2014 6:44 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/3/14, 12:40 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/1/2014 7:59 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
If a class has at least one member with a
On Sat, 03 May 2014 15:44:03 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 5/3/14, 12:40 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/1/2014 7:59 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
If a class has at least one member with a
destructor, the compiler might need to generate a
On Sat, 03 May 2014 19:36:53 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 5/3/2014 6:57 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I'm not sure mock networks can really be used for testing a
client-only lib of some specific protocol. There may also be other
examples.
On Sun, 04 May 2014 08:34:19 +
Daniele M. via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I have read this excellent article by David A. Wheeler:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/heartbleed.html
And since D language was not there, I mentioned it to him as a
possible good candidate
On Sun, 04 May 2014 21:18:22 +
Daniele M. via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Sunday, 4 May 2014 at 10:23:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
And then comes my next question: except for that malloc-hack,
would it have been possible to write it in @safe D
On Sun, 04 May 2014 13:29:33 +
Meta via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
The only language I would
really trust is one in which it is impossible to write unsafe
code, because you can then know that the developers can't use
such unsafe hacks, even if they wanted to.
On Mon, 05 May 2014 07:39:13 +
Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how much money have C design decisions cost
the industry in terms of anti-virus, static and dynamic analyzers
tools, operating systems security enforcements, security research
On Mon, 05 May 2014 10:00:54 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Walter Bright:
D has so many language features, we need a higher bar for
adding new ones, especially ones that can be done
straightforwardly with existing features.
If I am not wrong, all
On Mon, 05 May 2014 10:24:27 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 09:32:40 UTC, JR wrote:
On Sunday, 4 May 2014 at 21:18:24 UTC, Daniele M. wrote:
And then comes my next question: except for that malloc-hack,
would it have been possible to
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:55:13 +0400
Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Why the heck should internal symbols conflict with public from other
modules? No idea.
Because no one has been able to convince Walter that it's a bad idea for
private symbols to be visible.
On Mon, 05 May 2014 11:26:29 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Such code should be kept separate IMHO.
This means that you now have two modules, so to download them
atomically you need some kind of packaging, like a zip. If your
project
On Mon, 05 May 2014 13:11:29 +
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 12:48:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:55:13 +0400
Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Why
On Mon, 05 May 2014 16:15:42 +
hardcoremore via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
How to get and address of newly created object and put it in
pointer array?
int maxNeurons = 100;
Neuron*[] neurons = new Neuron*[](maxNeurons);
Neuron n;
for(int i = 0; i maxNeurons;
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:56:11 +0200
Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 05/05/2014 12:41 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Regardless, there's
nothing fundamentally limited about @safe except for operations
which are actually unsafe with regards
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:20:45 +0800
Lionello Lunesu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Hi all,
After last year's incident with my tires getting slashed, I'm really
hoping I can do without a car during this year's DConf. How feasible
is this?
I'll be staying at Aloft. Would
Ever since the mailing list software was changed to say sender via
Digitalmars-d, a number of the messages have been from via Digitalmars-d -
they're missing the actual sender. And for many of them, the person who sent
the message didn't bother to put a signature on it, making it so that you
can't
On Wed, 07 May 2014 20:58:21 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
So there's this recent discussion about making T[] be refcounted if
and only if T has a destructor.
That's an interesting idea. More generally, there's the notion that
making
On Thu, 08 May 2014 06:48:57 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Currently only the slices decay in mutables, while an immutable
int doesn't become mutable:
That's because what's happening is that the slice operator for arrays is
defined to return a tail-const
On Thu, 08 May 2014 12:38:44 +0200
Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 05/08/2014 08:55 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
As far as I can see, opByValue does the same thing as opSlice,
except that it's used specifically when passing to functions
On Thu, 08 May 2014 14:48:18 +0200
Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Am 08.05.2014 13:05, schrieb monarch_dodra:
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 at 07:09:24 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Just a general note: This is not only interesting for range/slice
types, but for any
On Thu, 08 May 2014 16:33:06 +
David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 at 16:30:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
For what practical reason would that be the case? I know that
the spec states undefined behavior, but AFAICS, there is
On Thu, 08 May 2014 17:18:03 +0200
Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Right, which is my point: const(RefCount!T) *is* dysfunctional,
which is why you'd want to skip it out entirely in the first
place.This holds true for types implemented with RefCount, such
On Thu, 08 May 2014 17:39:25 +0200
Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Am 08.05.2014 16:22, schrieb Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d:
On Thu, 08 May 2014 14:48:18 +0200
Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Am 08.05.2014 13:05
On Thu, 08 May 2014 18:10:28 +0200
Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 05/08/2014 06:02 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
If you have const data referencing mutable data, then yes, you can
cast away all the const you want, but at that point, it kind of
makes the
On Fri, 09 May 2014 09:56:09 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Please see this public service announcement:
http://xkcd.com/1179/
Though it lists 20130227 as discouraged format, but it's a valid
ISO 8601 format, and phobos Date.toISOString generates string
On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:38:44 +0200
Benjamin Thaut via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I know that there was a recent discussion about how the methods of
ranges should behave.
E.g.
- Does empty always have to be called before calling front or
popFront?
Certainly, ranges
On Tue, 13 May 2014 10:30:47 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Of course, for efficiency purposes range-based code (esp. Phobos code)
should try their best to only call .front once. But it should be
perfectly permissible to call .front multiple times.
Oh,
On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:29:32 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 12:58:09 -0400, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:38:44 +0200
Benjamin Thaut via Digitalmars-d
On Wed, 14 May 2014 22:42:46 +
Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
What is the plan for the pure-ity of memory management?
Right now the new operator is considered to be pure even though
it is not, but related functinos like malloc, GC.addRange,
On Wed, 14 May 2014 17:00:39 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 5/14/2014 3:42 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
If malloc can never be considered pure, even when hidden behind an
allocator,
It cannot be pure as long as it can fail.
why can it be
On Thu, 15 May 2014 01:33:34 +
Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 22:50:10 UTC, w0rp wrote:
I think even C malloc should be considered pure. True, it
affects global state by allocating memory, but it never changes
existing
On Thu, 15 May 2014 01:25:52 +
Kapps via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 00:00:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Because GC failures are not recoverable, so the pure allocation
cannot fail.
Is this intentionally the case? I always thought you
On Thu, 15 May 2014 05:51:14 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Yep, purity implies memoing.
No, it doesn't. _All_ that it means when a function is pure is that it cannot
access global or static variables unless they can't be changed after being
initialized (e.g. they're
On Thu, 15 May 2014 07:22:02 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 06:59:08 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
And it _definitely_ has nothing to do with functional purity.
Which makes it pointless and misleading.
Now, combined
On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:14:48 +0200
luka8088 via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 15.5.2014. 8:58, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 05:51:14 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Yep, purity implies memoing
On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:10:57 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 09:23:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
functions that weren't pure. It allowed for mutation within the
function, and
it allowed for allocation via new
On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:48:07 +
Don via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Yes. 'strong pure' means pure in the way that the functional
language crowd means 'pure'.
'weak pure' just means doesn't use globals.
But note that strong purity isn't an official concept, it was
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:43:11 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 5/15/14, 6:28 AM, Dicebot wrote:
This is not true. Because of such code you can't ever automatically
memoize strongly pure function results by compiler. A very practical
concern.
On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:03:13 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 5/15/2014 2:45 AM, Don wrote:
An interesting side-effect of the recent addition of @nogc to the
language, is that we get this ability back.
I hadn't thought of that. Pretty cool!
On Fri, 16 May 2014 16:45:28 +
Yota via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 17:08:58 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 12:16:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 02:05:08 -0400, monarch_dodra
On Sun, 18 May 2014 06:58:25 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:51:44AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:43:11 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote
On Mon, 19 May 2014 05:16:13 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2014 at 01:19:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's already so rare that memoization of a function call can
occur, that I'm
pretty much convinced that memoization
On Mon, 19 May 2014 06:05:26 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2014 at 05:39:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
1. it makes it easier to reason about code, because it
guarantees that the
function didn't access any global or static
On Mon, 19 May 2014 07:37:55 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2014 at 06:30:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
makes dealing with immutable far, far more pleasant. It's
particularly useful
when you need to allocate an immutable
On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:34:48 +
evilrat via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
as topic says sometimes ref has a 'little' problem now, it is
unavoidable in some cases and has some readability in code and
much more...
imagine we have a function void getMyNumber(ref int
On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:42:31 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:58:25 -0400, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:51:44AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d
On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:11:43 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 12:35:26 -0400, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:42:31 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
On Mon, 19 May 2014 14:33:55 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
The whole POINT of pure functions is that it will return the same
thing. The fact that it lives in a different piece of memory or not
is not important. We have to accept that. Any code
1 - 100 of 4515 matches
Mail list logo
