On 1/2/15 8:24 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Friday, 2 January 2015 at 12:40:41 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
You should wrap, unless we want to make _aaRange part of the stable api.
Yep, please don't rely on runtime internals.
Wrapping front can be inlined and optimized.
Well, as I said, I
On 1/2/15 12:37 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message
news:m86645$26iu$1...@digitalmars.com...
Why, because phobos developers aren't aware of druntime's activities?
Ideally, yes.
Nobody from phobos or druntime can commit changes that break the other
accidentally.
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message
news:m86645$26iu$1...@digitalmars.com...
Why, because phobos developers aren't aware of druntime's activities?
Ideally, yes.
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.3979.1420139660.9932.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The way I see it, this is an acceptable compromise:
1) Have .byKeyValue in druntime, which returns a struct with .key and
.value;
2) Have .byPair in Phobos (via UFCS), which wraps
On Friday, 2 January 2015 at 12:40:41 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
You should wrap, unless we want to make _aaRange part of the
stable api.
Yep, please don't rely on runtime internals.
Wrapping front can be inlined and optimized.
On 1/2/15 7:40 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message
news:m862b3$230o$1...@digitalmars.com...
You don't need to wrap, just reimplement (The _aaRange primitives are
accessible, I tried it). I don't see any reason to nest these, and
they can be unrelated. As I said
On 1/1/15 2:12 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 01:42:45PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
And I'm also with you that if you don't have .key .value support, this
isn't worth having.
[...]
The way I see it, this is an acceptable compromise:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message
news:m862b3$230o$1...@digitalmars.com...
You don't need to wrap, just reimplement (The _aaRange primitives are
accessible, I tried it). I don't see any reason to nest these, and they
can be unrelated. As I said before, you can shoehorn the primitives
On 12/31/14 22:35, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:34:07PM +0100, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 12/18/14 16:43, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
We currently have the ability to do opIndex for simulating an array
or other type indexed
On 12/31/14 6:05 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 22:58:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
people demanded Tuple support.
Was it bearophile? :P I can't stop feeling that it is simply not
recognized enough how bad D tuples are if such request arises. I'd
personally
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 01:42:45PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/31/14 6:05 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 22:58:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
people demanded Tuple support.
Was it bearophile? :P I can't stop feeling that it
On Tuesday, 30 December 2014 at 16:25:05 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/30/14 10:51 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 December 2014 at 15:48:03 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/18/14 11:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
I wasn't subscribed to druntime changes thus missed this
discussion.
On 12/18/14 16:43, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
We currently have the ability to do opIndex for simulating an array or other
type indexed at runtime.
But we have no way to simulate the ability of tuple indexing. Such an ability
would unleash a huge amount of possibilities,
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:34:07PM +0100, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/18/14 16:43, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
We currently have the ability to do opIndex for simulating an array
or other type indexed at runtime.
But we have no way to simulate the
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 21:37:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Very nice! Now make it work for int* and string*, but indexing
the tuple
returns (non-pointer) int and string. This is the original use
case that
prompted this ER, btw, so if it can't be achieved, then we
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 09:41:18PM +, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 21:37:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Very nice! Now make it work for int* and string*, but indexing the
tuple returns (non-pointer) int and string. This is the original use
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 22:05:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Point. But that means we've gone nowhere with AA .byPair().
If I wanted to stir up controversy, I'd say that the ultimate
cause of
this issue was the fact that struct fields can't be ref;
otherwise it
would be
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:35:18PM +, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 22:05:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Point. But that means we've gone nowhere with AA .byPair().
If I wanted to stir up controversy, I'd say that the ultimate cause
of
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 22:47:05 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
That's what I have right now. The catch is how to make S behave
like a
tuple.
I don't know why it was considered an important/worthy goal.
Trying to provide API based on tuples just hides the fact that
there
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:53:37PM +, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 22:47:05 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
That's what I have right now. The catch is how to make S behave like
a tuple.
I don't know why it was considered an important/worthy
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 22:58:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
people demanded Tuple support.
Was it bearophile? :P I can't stop feeling that it is simply not
recognized enough how bad D tuples are if such request arises.
I'd personally try to avoid those in almost all
On 12/18/14 11:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
I wasn't subscribed to druntime changes thus missed this discussion.
Will chime in there soon.
Ping, still waiting on this :)
-Steve
On Tuesday, 30 December 2014 at 15:48:03 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/18/14 11:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
I wasn't subscribed to druntime changes thus missed this
discussion.
Will chime in there soon.
Ping, still waiting on this :)
-Steve
*blush*
On 12/30/14 10:51 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 December 2014 at 15:48:03 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/18/14 11:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
I wasn't subscribed to druntime changes thus missed this discussion.
Will chime in there soon.
Ping, still waiting on this :)
*blush*
OK, I
We currently have the ability to do opIndex for simulating an array or
other type indexed at runtime.
But we have no way to simulate the ability of tuple indexing. Such an
ability would unleash a huge amount of possibilities, including
user-defined tuple types.
Let's designate a straw man
Have you seen my http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP63 ?
On 12/18/14 10:43 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
struct KeyValuePair(K, V)
{
K key;
V value;
enum length = 2;
ref K opTupleIndex(int x) if(x == 0) { return key;}
ref V opTupleIndex(int x) if(x == 1) { return value;}
}
Or with more recent changes to the compiler:
On 12/18/14 10:44 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Have you seen my http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP63 ?
I admit this is somewhat over my head, but it seems to be more focused
on types. I will note that your example:
struct Pack(T...)
{
alias expand = T;
alias expand this;
}
I don't think this would
On Thursday, 18 December 2014 at 16:15:09 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/18/14 10:44 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Have you seen my http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP63 ?
I admit this is somewhat over my head, but it seems to be more
focused on types.
In D there is no special built-in value tuple
On 12/18/14 11:34 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 18 December 2014 at 16:15:09 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I don't disagree with the idea of having operators inside templates, I
just don't know if it solves the problem I was looking at.
Your original snippet seems to implementable
I wasn't subscribed to druntime changes thus missed this
discussion. Will chime in there soon.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 03:44:18PM +, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Have you seen my http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP63 ?
Ahhh, finally I understand what this DIP is all about. :-D
I like it. +1.
T
--
If blunt statements had a point, they wouldn't be blunt...
On Thursday, 18 December 2014 at 18:04:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 03:44:18PM +, Dicebot via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Have you seen my http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP63 ?
Ahhh, finally I understand what this DIP is all about. :-D
I like it. +1.
T
33 matches
Mail list logo
