On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 05:26:27 UTC, BLM768 wrote:
If I can automate the generation of bindings to a satisfactory
degree, expanding the bindings should be a very simple process,
so I could just write bindings for the core functionality and
have others expand the bindings as needed. That
On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 17:56:10 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
On Friday, 24 May 2013 at 19:44:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2013 20:30:54 Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
I'd like to know if there is interest in a precise garbage
collector.
There is interest in it, and Rainer Schütz
With a vote 15/0 the new standard std.uni is approved to replace
the existing module.
Several people were in favor of the name changing to std.unicode
others opposed unless it was part of a Phobos restructure. Such
is up to the core devs to decide.
Congrads Dmitry.
Steven Schveighoffer, el 23 de May a las 23:53 me escribiste:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:38:32 -0400, Walter Bright
> wrote:
>
> >On 5/23/2013 7:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >>This is one change where ALL code broken by this change
> >>is fixable with a simple solution, and at some point, p
On Friday, 24 May 2013 at 19:44:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2013 20:30:54 Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
I'd like to know if there is interest in a precise garbage
collector.
There is interest in it, and Rainer Schütze did a talk on it at
DConf. At the
current pace (assuming t
On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 17:08:19 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
You can achieve the same with:
if (!IPv6)
etherType = 0x0800;
else
...
There is no need to double-initialize a immutable value.
As I have already an
Dicebot, el 23 de May a las 16:42 me escribiste:
> something I may have actually used in real code writing a low-level
> networking library:
>
> struct Packet
> {
> immutable etherType = 0x0800; // IPv4 by default;
>
> // ...
>
> this(bool IPv6)
> {
>
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 23 de May a las 12:57 me escribiste:
> On 5/23/13 9:12 AM, Don wrote:
> >No, it's not, it's a fix plus a new misfeature.
>
> Don, you're wrong. The feature is sensible. The problem with it is
> that it changes semantics of existing code.
Is not sensible for code review. Fo
Vladimir Panteleev, el 24 de May a las 09:55 me escribiste:
> >When the GC is run:
> >- Use VirtualProtect to mark all mutable memory pages as read-only
> >- Add a vectored exception handler to handle the access violation
> >exception
> >- Resume the GC thread
>
> I've tried writing a generational
On 5/24/2013 11:12 PM, Diggory wrote:
On 64-bit windows there is also the "GetWriteWatch" function which lets
you access the dirty flag in the page table = no page faults = super
efficient concurrent generational GC. Just a shame it doesn't exist on
32-bit systems for some reason.
There's all s
On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 07:32:15 UTC, TommiT wrote:
I don't see a reason why we couldn't have both ways (1. member
initializers and 2. CTFE-able default constructor) for defining
the init state of structs. Probably the sensible thing would be
to make all member initializers illegal iff a defa
Hello everyone,
A few of you might have remembered me posting a proof-of-concept
embedded D template engine a week or two ago. I'd like to
announce that a few weeks of development later, I've extracted
the core idea of that into a Dub-compatible library, called
templ-d.
The syntax that templ
On Friday, 24 May 2013 at 13:54:21 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is an option to prohibit initializers for struct member
declarations at all and allow CTFE-able default constructors
instead, but that would have been a major change.
I don't see a reason why we couldn't have both ways (1. member
in
13 matches
Mail list logo