On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 10:46:01 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
[...]
In contrast to what many folks expect, TCO is affecting
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
In
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 11:19:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
D language authors don't want to enforce any code of conduct or
moderation in the newsgroup which means certain personas have
to be simply ignored.
This is not a policy that will scale well. Ketmar's behaviour was
badly out of line.
On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 01:42:13 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 17:31:23 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 16:27:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
[...]
* It must not be ignorable by the compiler.
* It must generate an error if that compiler would
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 17:31:23 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 16:27:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
[...]
* It must not be ignorable by the compiler.
* It must generate an error if that compiler would be unable
to do the TCO. Otherwise, the compiler *may* (not
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 16:27:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
[...]
* It must not be ignorable by the compiler.
* It must generate an error if that compiler would be unable to
do the TCO. Otherwise, the compiler *may* (not "must") apply
the TCO, unless compiled under (some optimization
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 15:27:54 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 14:36:22 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 10:25:36 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 13:15:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Btw here's a thread from 2014 that touches on
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 16:18:47 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Previous discussion seems to favour @unboundedStack as it can
become a requirement to go beyond the stack-size-safe
operations effectibly tracking where stack overflow may happen
and encourage detailed review of those functions.
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 15:48:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 15:27:54 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
I've been thinking about changing @tco for @boundedStack, as
it'll really reflect guarantees on functions while implicitly
asking for TCO on functions that
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 15:27:54 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
I've been thinking about changing @tco for @boundedStack, as
it'll really reflect guarantees on functions while implicitly
asking for TCO on functions that require it. But the fact that
most functions should be marked as
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 14:36:22 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 10:25:36 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 13:15:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Btw here's a thread from 2014 that touches on the idea of a
"tailrec" annotation. At the time, Walter viewed
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 10:25:36 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 13:15:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Btw here's a thread from 2014 that touches on the idea of a
"tailrec" annotation. At the time, Walter viewed the
optimization as the compiler's business and not something
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 12:29:33 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
The
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
The
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
The
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:10:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 16:52:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 13:15:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Btw here's a thread from 2014 that touches on the idea of a
"tailrec" annotation. At the time, Walter viewed the
optimization as the compiler's business and not something he'd
elevate to a language feature:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:32:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
It might be interesting to have proof that the stack is bounded
(and won't overflow).
Yes, a stack depth guarantee would be useful for D fibers.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:16:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:10:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Annotating every callsite seems uncomfortable, being able to
perform TCO is a property of the function and not something
that might look call-site dependant.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:10:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Annotating every callsite seems uncomfortable, being able to
perform TCO is a property of the function and not something
that might look call-site dependant.
You only need to annotate the location where the function calls
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 16:52:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 16:52:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
@tco does not bring any guarantees to the caller, so you might
as well annotate the call-site with some compiler specific
feature.
actually, annotating the call itself seems to have alot more
sense judging from described OP
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:17:08 UTC, ketmar wrote:
your DIP is aimed for is brain-damaged coders who are not able
to understand how programs work (and why "scope(exit)" may
prevent TCO). it won't help anyone. sorry.
This is really unacceptablely rude. Step away from the computer
and cool
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
Why should
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 12:01:54 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement
Btw here's a thread from 2014 that touches on the idea of a
"tailrec" annotation. At the time, Walter viewed the optimization
as the compiler's business and not something he'd elevate to a
language feature:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/lqp6pu$1kkv$1...@digitalmars.com
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 11:17:17 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
Your quote leaves out the "because" part, which is the
interesting part.
because it is irrelevant.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 10:50:20 UTC, "Smoke" Adams wrote:
You are not
i am.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
The
On 07/10/2016 12:21 PM, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:46:24 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
So when one makes a post here saying that "D is aimed at brain-dead
people", we shouldn't take that for an insult.
absolutely. but "D is crap" is whole different story.
Your quote leaves out the
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:20:07 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:05:46 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Your joking right? No personal attacks?
where do you see personal attack in my words? i'm not saying
that OP is dumb, and i'm not saying that his proposal is dumb.
but it is
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:46:24 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
So when one makes a post here saying that "D is aimed at
brain-dead people", we shouldn't take that for an insult.
absolutely. but "D is crap" is whole different story.
On 07/10/2016 11:30 AM, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:24:58 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
[...]
It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature would
make use of it. You called those who would use it "brain-damaged".
i am not responsible for people's assumptions.
So
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:24:58 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 07/10/2016 08:39 AM, ketmar wrote:
note that i didn't said this about OP, in no way. so no
personal attacks
here.
It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature
would make use of it. You called those who would use
On 07/10/2016 08:39 AM, ketmar wrote:
note that i didn't said this about OP, in no way. so no personal attacks
here.
It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature would
make use of it. You called those who would use it "brain-damaged".
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:05:46 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Your joking right? No personal attacks?
where do you see personal attack in my words? i'm not saying that
OP is dumb, and i'm not saying that his proposal is dumb. but it
is *aimed* to dumb people (which doesn't automatically makes
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:39:06 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:37:18 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:20:59 UTC, Seb wrote:
... guys, please stay friendly, constructive and polite! I
thought we are all grown-ups here!
i do. someone who is not able to
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 07:43:14 UTC, ketmar wrote:
we already has one optimization case speced -- NRVO. and it is
BAD. adding another implementation detail to the spec will only
worsen the situation, i believe.
We have other cases cases where optimization is expected but it
is poorly
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 07:30:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
If attributes look messy, pragma can be used.
It may look as an addition with little gain, but one of the
reasons of compiling is to prevent runtime errors as early as
possible and this seeks exactly that.
then TCO should be
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:59:21 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:44:22 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, there is no cure for poor skills, but the point is to
prevent the need to avoid recursion to ensure there are no
stack overflows. It seems reasonable considering D
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:47:47 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:29:43 UTC, A.B wrote:
Get fucked by yourself asshole ! Your penance is that you'll
have to review all the crappy DIPs that will come on GH until
your death, now that anyone can post his fantastic idea
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:44:22 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, there is no cure for poor skills, but the point is to
prevent the need to avoid recursion to ensure there are no
stack overflows. It seems reasonable considering D targets
systems programming.
i see "system programmer" as
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:29:43 UTC, A.B wrote:
Get fucked by yourself asshole ! Your penance is that you'll
have to review all the crappy DIPs that will come on GH until
your death, now that anyone can post his fantastic idea easily.
Hahahahaha.
Go back to >>>/g/
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:17:08 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, it probably does TCO. The problem is what if you think it
does and it cannot do it because of a misunderstanding on when
it can be applied or a bug?
there can't be any
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:18:41 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, it probably does TCO. The problem is what if you think it
does and it cannot do it because of a misunderstanding on when
it can be applied or a bug?
Then file a
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:37:18 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:20:59 UTC, Seb wrote:
... guys, please stay friendly, constructive and polite! I
thought we are all grown-ups here!
i do. someone who is not able to understand when and how TCO
works is clearly
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:20:59 UTC, Seb wrote:
... guys, please stay friendly, constructive and polite! I
thought we are all grown-ups here!
i do. someone who is not able to understand when and how TCO
works is clearly brain-damaged. if he isn't, why did he become
programmer in the
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:20:59 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:17:17 UTC, A.B wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:24:49 UTC, A.B wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch
wrote:
[...]
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:17:17 UTC, A.B wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:24:49 UTC, A.B wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch
wrote:
[...]
That's crap...I disassemble DMD output some time to
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, it probably does TCO. The problem is what if you think it
does and it cannot do it because of a misunderstanding on when
it can be applied or a bug?
Then file a bug report?
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:24:49 UTC, A.B wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, it probably does TCO. The problem is what if you think it
does and it cannot do it because of a misunderstanding on when
it can be applied or a bug?
there can't be any "misunderstanding" from compiler side. either
it is a
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:24:49 UTC, A.B wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
The
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
The proposal it's ready for merge on the new [DIPs
56 matches
Mail list logo
