On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 21:42:42 UTC, kinke wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 21:25:53 UTC, kinke wrote:
We don't use any MinGW functions at all
Let me rephrase that: the new MinGW-w64-based libs don't
*include* any MinGW functions at all, not a single one. So you
cannot use one
On 11/6/2018 3:00 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
What sort of refactoring are we looking at? Any low-hanging fruit here
that we non-compiler-experts can chip away at?
Simply going with foreach loops is a nice improvement.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 02:12:02PM -0800, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> With the recent merging of the last of the big files machobj.d:
>
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8911
>
> I'm happy to say we're over the hump in converting the backend to D!
>
> Remaining files
With the recent merging of the last of the big files machobj.d:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8911
I'm happy to say we're over the hump in converting the backend to D!
Remaining files are minor: tk.c, cgen.c, dt.c, fp.c, os.c, outbuf.c,
sizecheck.c, strtold.c and mem.c. I'll probably
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 07:44:41PM +, Atila Neves via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 18:00:22 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> > This is a tool + article I wrote in February, but never got around
> > to finishing / publishing until today.
> >
> >
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 21:25:53 UTC, kinke wrote:
We don't use any MinGW functions at all
Let me rephrase that: the new MinGW-w64-based libs don't
*include* any MinGW functions at all, not a single one. So you
cannot use one by accident. ;) - For more in-depth infos, check
out the
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 15:08:47 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 14:46:25 UTC, kinke wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 13:53:50 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
Very cool! And very scary too, we'll have to verify the
transcendantal precision and memcpy
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 11:15:09 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 11:12:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
[...]
Sounds good. Thanks!
Hi RazvanN,
Any chance you could have a look at this one :) ?
https://forum.dlang.org/post/zwxbdnxdvkbaesujw...@forum.dlang.org
Kind
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 15:14:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
[...]
I noticed that the `export` visibility attribute is curiously not
mentioned anywhere in the article. I suppose it is not relevant
to the encapsulation story, but it is weird to see it in the spec
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 18:00:22 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
This is a tool + article I wrote in February, but never got
around to finishing / publishing until today.
https://blog.thecybershadow.net/2018/02/07/dmdprof/
Hopefully someone will find it useful.
Awesome, great work!
I
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 19:01:58 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I don't have the time to look into this right now, but at a
cursory glance, WOW. This is awesome! It looks like it would
be really useful one day when I try to tackle the
dmd-on-lowmem-system problem again. This will greatly help
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 06:00:22PM +, Vladimir Panteleev via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> This is a tool + article I wrote in February, but never got around to
> finishing / publishing until today.
>
> https://blog.thecybershadow.net/2018/02/07/dmdprof/
>
> Hopefully someone will find it
This is a tool + article I wrote in February, but never got
around to finishing / publishing until today.
https://blog.thecybershadow.net/2018/02/07/dmdprof/
Hopefully someone will find it useful.
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 15:14:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Last week, inspired by another discussion in these forums about
D's private-to-the-module form of encapsulation, I spent a few
hours putting a new article together for the blog. Ali, Joakim,
Nicholas helped me get it in shape.
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 15:14:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Last week, inspired by another discussion in these forums about
D's private-to-the-module form of encapsulation, I spent a few
hours putting a new article together for the blog. Ali, Joakim,
Nicholas helped me get it in shape.
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9uoak1/implementing_rusts_stdsyncmutex_in_d/
Somewhere on hacker news too, but you know how that goes.
On 11/6/18 8:14 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
Last week, inspired by another discussion in these forums about D's
private-to-the-module form of encapsulation, I spent a few hours putting
a new article together for the blog. Ali, Joakim, Nicholas helped me get
it in shape.
The blog:
Last week, inspired by another discussion in these forums about
D's private-to-the-module form of encapsulation, I spent a few
hours putting a new article together for the blog. Ali, Joakim,
Nicholas helped me get it in shape.
The blog:
On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 14:46:25 UTC, kinke wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 13:53:50 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 21:04:13 UTC, kinke wrote:
Glad to announce the first beta for LDC 1.13:
* Based on D 2.083.0.
* The Windows packages are now fully
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 16:33:36 UTC, kinke wrote:
I figured it'd be for a lot of Windows users. Why not
explicitly express your gratitude with a little 'thank you'
then? After all, that little bullet point in the release notes
easily took some 40 hours of my spare time, and some
On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 01:39:46 UTC, unprotected-entity
wrote:
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 21:35:04 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/2/2018 5:44 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
When one encounters a new idea that's unfamiliar sometimes
it's easy to think that because it's unfamiliar it must
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 04:50:52 UTC, unprotected-entity
wrote:
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 00:44:15 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
[...]
I believe that responses like this, are really just designed to
further obfuscate the point I'm trying to make, so that it
cannot progress any
On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 10:18:11 UTC, ShadoLight wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 00:53:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
And along that line, recent wisdom is that it's better to move
things *out* of classes (and structs) if they don't need
access to private members. (Sorry, I wanted to
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 03:10:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 02:45:19AM +, unprotected-entity
via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
Another thing to look for, is signs of code smell. I would
include in this, unit tests calling private methods (which
seems to be
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:33:52 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:28:54 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
But at the end of the day, it just depends on the scope of the
module. Is it getting to large? If so, split.
Yup. LOC aren't a particulalry
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 11:12:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 08:45:13 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
/the_dbugfix_campaign_round_1_report/
[...]
It faded out. It went well in the first round, then I got only
a handful in the second round (all from two people), then it
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 08:45:13 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
/the_dbugfix_campaign_round_1_report/
Is this still happening? If yes, I am willing to volunteer.
It faded out. It went well in the first round, then I got only a
handful in the second round (all from two people), then it went
On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 16:50:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
There is a troll here posting as multiple different aliases,
who has tried this before, and continually comes back to harp
on the same issue. It's why I haven't participated, he doesn't
need to have more encouragement.
On Monday, 14 May 2018 at 15:23:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I planned an extended vacation with my wife around DConf this
year and, despite my intentions before we left, fell quite far
behind on my D duties. I'm in the process of getting caught up
with everything, and that includes publishing
29 matches
Mail list logo
