Re: LLVM 7.0.0 no mention of D anymore
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 13:10:07 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: http://releases.llvm.org/7.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#external-open-source-projects-using-llvm-7 no mention of D anymore :( http://releases.llvm.org/6.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#external-open-source-projects-using-llvm-6 http://releases.llvm.org/5.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#external-open-source-projects-using-llvm-5 http://releases.llvm.org/4.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#external-open-source-projects-using-llvm-4-0-0 Sorry, I missed the deadline for the LLVM 7 release! Regards, Kai
Re: Iain Buclaw at GNU Tools Cauldron 2018
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 07:15, Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Sunday, 7 October 2018 at 15:41:43 UTC, greentea wrote: > > Date: September 7 to 9, 2018. > > Location: Manchester, UK > > > > GDC - D front-end GCC > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRJJ_lrSxE > > Thanks for the link, just watched the whole video. The first > half-hour sets the standard as an intro to the language, as only > a compiler developer other than the main implementer could give, > ie someone with fresh eyes. > > I loved that Iain started off with a list of real-world projects. > That's a mistake a lot of tech talks make, ie not motivating > _why_ anybody should care about their tech and simply diving into > the tech itself. I hadn't heard some of that info either, great > way to begin. > > My only nitpick is that I wish he'd emphasized how much of a > focus D puts on metaprogramming, as I've noticed a lot of > comments on proggit/HN/etc. saying that the power and ease of use > of D's metaprogramming really stood out for them when trying the > language. Thanks, one of the feedbacks I got mentioned ripping out most grammar stuff and putting more emphasis on key selling points, however by the time I received that memo, I think it was 3 days before I was due to actually give the talk. All I had time for was just ripping out stanza after stanza of notes I had written up. It may or may not be obvious that I wanted to attempt to describe aspects with a slight affinity to how the landscape looks from the ABI/Codegen side, of which compile-time features get even less deserving attention. Not to forget, talking about just the D language as a whole is easily a 3 hour talk, and I felt that I didn't really want to put too much emphasis on one part or another, especially when condensing it down to 25 minutes. This also meant I was pretty much all was going off an auto-cue I had pre-authored and polished. I wasn't really in the mood for winging it this time around as I've perhaps done in former Dconf talks - to which from 2017's experience, I can quite happily go on a tangent for hours and hours and... -- Iain
Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation
On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:27:47 UTC, RazvanN wrote: Both the DIP and the implementation still lack a -dip10xx switch. After discussing with Walter and Andrei we came to the conclusion that a flag is not necessary in this case. Please elaborate on the reasoning. Immediately after the DIP is accepted, the postblit will be deprecated. Its not about the deprecation process, its about the transitional process, i.e what to do when there is both a postblit and a copy constructor are defined. Whatever the default is, if there is no way to control it, it is impossible to transition smoothly.
Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation
On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:14:51 UTC, RazvanN wrote: On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote: Hi all, I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy constructor calls in all situations where a copy is made. For more details, please visit [1] and if you have the time, please offer some feedback, Thank you, RazvanN [1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129/ I've made all the changes in the code that the DIP includes[1] and the tests seem to be all green. I still need to add more tests; if you have any tests that you want to make sure the implementation takes into account please post them. Cheers, RazvanN [1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688 Both the DIP and the implementation still lack a -dip10xx switch.
Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation
On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:26:17 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:14:51 UTC, RazvanN wrote: On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote: Hi all, I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy constructor calls in all situations where a copy is made. For more details, please visit [1] and if you have the time, please offer some feedback, Thank you, RazvanN [1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129/ I've made all the changes in the code that the DIP includes[1] and the tests seem to be all green. I still need to add more tests; if you have any tests that you want to make sure the implementation takes into account please post them. Cheers, RazvanN [1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688 Both the DIP and the implementation still lack a -dip10xx switch. After discussing with Walter and Andrei we came to the conclusion that a flag is not necessary in this case. Immediately after the DIP is accepted, the postblit will be deprecated.
Re: Copy Constructor DIP and implementation
On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote: Hi all, I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy constructor calls in all situations where a copy is made. For more details, please visit [1] and if you have the time, please offer some feedback, Thank you, RazvanN [1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129/ I've made all the changes in the code that the DIP includes[1] and the tests seem to be all green. I still need to add more tests; if you have any tests that you want to make sure the implementation takes into account please post them. Cheers, RazvanN [1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688
