John Reimer wrote:
Hello Derek,
Just thinking out aloud ...
If two modules import each other and this can be 'fixed' by instead
having both modules as a single module, what is stopping the compiler
from just pretending that they are a single module for compilation
purposes?
This does assume th
Hello Lars,
John Reimer wrote:
Since I'm not a Java developer (or, to be honest, any kind of
developer
beyond a language enthusiast), I'd say I'm not in a good position to
question the design decision of Java source that uses cyclic
dependencies
(such as SWT).
All I can say is that I can agree
John Reimer wrote:
> Since I'm not a Java developer (or, to be honest, any kind of developer
> beyond a language enthusiast), I'd say I'm not in a good position to
> question the design decision of Java source that uses cyclic dependencies
> (such as SWT).
> All I can say is that I can agree tha
Jason House wrote:
Is it possible to close the bugzilla bugs that were fixed?
More generally, bug owners get e-mails when bugs are closed, but
don't receive e-mails when new releases are made. Here I was sitting
around waiting for one of my bugs to get fixed, and here it's been
fixed a week and
Is it possible to close the bugzilla bugs that were fixed?
More generally, bug owners get e-mails when bugs are closed, but don't receive
e-mails when new releases are made. Here I was sitting around waiting for one
of my bugs to get fixed, and here it's been fixed a week and a half :(
Walter
Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:07:42 +0200, Yigal Chripun wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "John Reimer" wrote in message
>> news:28b70f8cfcfe8cb30c0a0e2a...@news.digitalmars.com...
>>> Hello Sean,
>>>
bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>
>> Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if
Yigal Chripun Wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > This might be a naive idea, and wouldn't solve the problems with cyclic
> > dependancies in the general case: But regarding the static initializaton
> > issue (which I've come up against myself), what if static initializers
> > allowed some sort of
Hello Yigal,
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"John Reimer" wrote in message
news:28b70f8cfcfe8cb30c0a0e2a...@news.digitalmars.com...
Hello Sean,
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each oth
Hello Nick,
"John Reimer" wrote in message
news:28b70f8cfcfe8cb30c0a0e2a...@news.digitalmars.com...
Hello Sean,
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
nearly unavoid
"John Reimer" wrote in message
news:28b70f8cfcfe8cb30c0a0e2a...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Sean,
>
>> bearophile wrote:
>>
>>> Walter Bright:
>>>
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
>>> Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
>>> ne
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"John Reimer" wrote in message
news:28b70f8cfcfe8cb30c0a0e2a...@news.digitalmars.com...
Hello Sean,
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
nearl
Hello Lars,
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Lars,
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
nearly unavoidable, if a module contains string functions, and
another one contains
Hello bearophile,
John Reimer:
Since other languages don't necessarily have the same module/package
concept (except perhaps Java is the closest),
Despite few (bad) holes that need to be filled still, the closest is
probably the Python module system.
Bye,
bearophile
You're probably right.
John Reimer:
> Since other languages
> don't necessarily have the same module/package concept (except perhaps Java
> is the closest),
Despite few (bad) holes that need to be filled still, the closest is probably
the Python module system.
Bye,
bearophile
John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Lars,
>
>> bearophile wrote:
>>
>>> Walter Bright:
>>>
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
>>> Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
>>> nearly unavoidable, if a module contains string functions, and
>>> a
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
nearly unavoidable, if a module contains string functions, and
another one contains math stuff, the string module will want to use
some
Hello Derek,
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:45:24 +0100, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
nearly unavoidable, if a module contains string functio
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:45:24 +0100, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>
>> Walter Bright:
>>> Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
>>
>> Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is nearly
>> unavoidable, if a module contains string function
Hello Lars,
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
nearly unavoidable, if a module contains string functions, and
another one contains math stuff, the string module will
Hello Sean,
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is
nearly unavoidable, if a module contains string functions, and
another one contains math stuff, the string module will
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Yigal Chripun escribió:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund escribió:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really
Ary Borenszweig escribió:
Lars Ivar Igesund escribió:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really reall
Yigal Chripun escribió:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 s
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
I
Lars Ivar Igesund escribió:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do s
Yigal Chripun wrote:
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
> For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
> time to
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, whe
Sönke Ludwig schrieb:
Percentages have to be multiplied roughly by 2 because
this is a dual core system.
Hm, ignore that part.. they are multiplied by 2 already...
Walter Bright schrieb:
Sönke Ludwig wrote:
In my project compilation takes now several minutes for some files
which compiled in about a second with 2.021. I stopped the compilation
of the whole project after about 2 hours (took 2 min at most on 2.021).
I'll try to track this down when I get t
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should watch Descent videos on youtube, it is *much* smarter that that!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/asterite
>
Wow, that's so awesome!
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:41:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compil
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is nearly
unavoidable, if a module contains string functions, and another one contains
math stuff, the string module will want to use so
bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>> Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
>
> Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is nearly
> unavoidable, if a module contains string functions, and another one
> contains math stuff, the string module will want t
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compile
in 13 seconds.
Forget the 60% slowdown from LDC -- this is 515
Hello Denis,
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:39:08 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really
long time to do so.
It n
Bill Baxter Wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Walter Bright
> wrote:
> > BCS wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That is the cyclic import problem. Can you check again to see if you
> >>> have cyclic imports?
> >>>
> >>
> >> could you add a flag to DMD that will give a waning on cyclical imports?
> >
> >
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, BCS wrote:
> Reply to Walter,
>
>
>> That is the cyclic import problem. Can you check again to see if you
>> have cyclic imports?
>>
>
> could you add a flag to DMD that will give a waning on cyclical imports?
http://www.shfls.org/w/d/dimple/
Cyclic imports show
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:28:40 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:39:08 +0300, Bill Baxter
>>> wrote:
>>>
On S
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:28:40 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:39:08 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:5
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:39:08 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
I'd love to have an unnecessary import finder tool. How does that work?
--bb
It's easy: remove an import and try if it still works :)
I recompile that file only and since all the imports are private, it
generally
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:39:08 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
>>> wrote:
>>>
For me,
Denis Koroskin escribió:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:39:08 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to d
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:39:08 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter
wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 m
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
>> time to do so.
>>
>> It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compi
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:23 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compile
in 13 seconds.
Forget the 60% slowdown from LDC -- this is 515% slower!
(building w
Walter Bright:
> Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Generally all the modules in my dlibs import each other. This is nearly
unavoidable, if a module contains string functions, and another one contains
math stuff, the string module will want to use some math stuff and th
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>>>
>>> That is the cyclic import problem. Can you check again to see if you
>>> have cyclic imports?
>>>
>>
>> could you add a flag to DMD that will give a waning on cyclical imports?
>
> I could, but in the meantime I want to fi
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> My code involves maybe a hundred files, and does perhaps use templates
>> "excessively". :-)
>
> Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
>
> Also, try putting them all (most) on the same command
Bill Baxter wrote:
My code involves maybe a hundred files, and does perhaps use templates
"excessively". :-)
Excess isn't the problem, I want to see if import cycles is.
Also, try putting them all (most) on the same command line, and see if
the speed improves.
BCS wrote:
That is the cyclic import problem. Can you check again to see if you
have cyclic imports?
could you add a flag to DMD that will give a waning on cyclical imports?
I could, but in the meantime I want to find the source of the slowdown.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM, John C wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.038.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.022.zip
>
> What's changed in th
Reply to Walter,
That is the cyclic import problem. Can you check again to see if you
have cyclic imports?
could you add a flag to DMD that will give a waning on cyclical imports?
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:51:11 +0300, John C wrote:
What's changed in the compiler to increase compile times so dramatically
with this build? It's about a five-fold increase. My code uses some
templates
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:51:11 +0300, John C wrote:
>
>> Walter Bright Wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.038.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.co
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:51:11 +0300, John C wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.038.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.022.zip
What's changed in the compiler to incr
Walter Bright Wrote:
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.038.zip
>
>
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.022.zip
What's changed in the compiler to increase compile times so dramatically with
"Christopher Wright" wrote
> Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:49 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Walter wants pure functions that have no side effects *AND* cannot be
>>> affected by other functions' side effects. Your example fails the
>>> second
>>> requirement.
Simen Kjaeraas Wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:27:16 +0100, Christopher Wright
> wrote:
>
> > Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:49 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Walter wants pure functions that have no side effects *AND* cannot be
> >>> affected by ot
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:27:16 +0100, Christopher Wright
wrote:
Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:49 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Walter wants pure functions that have no side effects *AND* cannot be
affected by other functions' side effects. Your example fails the
Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:49 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Walter wants pure functions that have no side effects *AND* cannot be
affected by other functions' side effects. Your example fails the second
requirement.
I should have put that in there as well. My poin
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:49 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Walter wants pure functions that have no side effects *AND* cannot be
affected by other functions' side effects. Your example fails the second
requirement.
I should have put that in there as well. My point was that a delegate
"Simen Kjaeraas" wrote
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:39:00 +0100, Robert Jacques wrote:
>> Which I read to mean that a returned delegate is inherently pure. On a
>> second read, I think you mean that the closure heap variables may be
>> treated as immutable once a delegate is returned if the delegate
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:39:00 +0100, Robert Jacques
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:28:43 -0800, Simen Kjaeraas
wrote:
So this does not seem pure to you?
int myPureFunction(int x) {
return x;
}
Short answer: That's a function, not a delegate and without a 'pure' tag
it's unr
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:28:43 -0800, Simen Kjaeraas
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:58:47 +0100, Robert Jacques
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:48:21 -0500, mastrost
wrote:
In this example, myPureFunction looks like a pure function, does it?
No it doesn't
So this does not seem pure t
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:58:47 +0100, Robert Jacques
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:48:21 -0500, mastrost wrote:
In this example, myPureFunction looks like a pure function, does it?
No it doesn't
So this does not seem pure to you?
int myPureFunction(int x) {
return x;
}
--
Simen
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:48:21 -0500, mastrost wrote:
int delegate() getPureFunction(int x){
int bar(){
return x;
}
return &bar;
}
int delegate() getPureFunction(int x){
int bar(){
return x++; // no longer pure
}
return &bar;
}
In this example, myP
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:48:21 +0300, mastrost wrote:
Hi,
first of all, thank you Walter and all the D community for making the
great "pure"
feature become reality.
I have 2 questions concerning the behaviour of this feature.
The first one concerns the existence -or not- of "pure delegates".
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Michel Fortin
wrote:
> On 2008-12-14 18:55:58 -0500, "Bill Baxter" said:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
>
> Bill B
On 2008-12-14 18:55:58 -0500, "Bill Baxter" said:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Daniel de Kok
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 2
Sönke Ludwig wrote:
In my project compilation takes now several minutes for some files which
compiled in about a second with 2.021. I stopped the compilation of the
whole project after about 2 hours (took 2 min at most on 2.021).
I'll try to track this down when I get the time, but i doubt tha
Hi,
first of all, thank you Walter and all the D community for making the great
"pure"
feature become reality.
I have 2 questions concerning the behaviour of this feature.
The first one concerns the existence -or not- of "pure delegates".
It makes sense to use a delegate if its closure is not em
Bill Baxter schrieb:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compile
in 13 seconds.
Forget the 60% slowdown from LDC -- this is 515% slower!
(building with DSSS and tango)
--bb
In my p
Extrawurst wrote:
Even if so, why has it become so much slower ?
See my answer to Bill.
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
Are you using a lot of templates and recursive imports?
A lot of templates, yes. A lot of recursive imports, I don't think
so. Is there an easy way to see if I have recursive imports? I
usually try to make my imports
Hello Andrei,
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Daniel de Kok
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:10:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
Version D 1.038 Dec 11, 2008
New/Changed Features
* Added Partial IFTI Bugzilla 493
Hooray! Now I can finish porting std.algorithm and friends
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:37:27 +0300, bearophile
wrote:
Bill Baxter:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compile
in 13 seconds.
Forget the 60% slowdown from LDC -- this is 515% slower
Bill Baxter:
> For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
> time to do so.
> It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compile
> in 13 seconds.
> Forget the 60% slowdown from LDC -- this is 515% slower!
> (building with DSSS and tango)
I have tested t
Walter Bright:
> Are you using a lot of templates and recursive imports?
Note: the mysterious new bug I have found in V.1.038 may have some relation
with recursive imports (removing them that bug more or less vanishes).
Bye,
bearophile
Bill Baxter schrieb:
Is there an easy way to see if I have recursive imports? I
usually try to make my imports tree-like, but it's possible I may have
some unintentional import cycles.
--bb
Yep, you can use DIL to analyse your code and draw dependency graphs.
http://code.google.com/p/dil/
q
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Are you using a lot of templates and recursive imports?
A lot of templates, yes. A lot of recursive imports, I don't think
so. Is there an easy way to see if I have recursive imports? I
usually try to make my imports tree-like, but it's p
Even if so, why has it become so much slower ?
Walter Bright wrote:
Are you using a lot of templates and recursive imports?
Bill Baxter wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to co
Are you using a lot of templates and recursive imports?
Bill Baxter wrote:
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compile
in 13 seconds.
Forget the 60% slowdown from LDC -- this is 515% s
For me, V1.038 compiles my code but takes a really really really long
time to do so.
It now takes 1 min 20 secs for a full build, when it used to compile
in 13 seconds.
Forget the 60% slowdown from LDC -- this is 515% slower!
(building with DSSS and tango)
--bb
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM
> Apologies for the delay in updating std2. I've had a good reason (in
> addition to having a dissertation to complete), see www.erdani.org. :o)
Bad news for D :-)
Congratulations anyway.
Christof
This time the compilation of my dlibs (using V.1.038) has gone a little less
smoothly.
With V.1.037 this line compiles fine, while statically asserts in V.1.038:
static assert(!is(typeof( xkeys([12:"ab", 5:"ba"]) )));
I have tried to track down the problem, but after going into a rat's nest for
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Daniel de Kok
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:10:26 +0900, Bi
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Daniel de Kok
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:10:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
Version D 1.038 Dec 11, 2008
New/Changed Features
* Added Partial IFTI Bugzill
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Daniel de Kok
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:10:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>
> Version D 1.038 Dec 11, 2008
> New/Changed Features
>* Added Parti
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:10:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
Version D 1.038 Dec 11, 2008
New/Changed Features
* Added Partial IFTI Bugzilla 493
Hooray! Now I can finish porting std.algorithm and friends to D1!
So, we
Mike James Wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
>
>
> > OK, they've been uploaded and the download links work now.
>
>
> I can download the DMD 1.038 zip file but Windows Folders, 7-zip and WinRAR
> fail to open it - bad EOF.
>
> -=mike=-
It does now :-)
-=mike=-
Dejan Lekic wrote:
"The requested URL /dmd.2.022.zip was not found on this server."
I always goof up something. They're there now.
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> OK, they've been uploaded and the download links work now.
I can download the DMD 1.038 zip file but Windows Folders, 7-zip and WinRAR
fail to open it - bad EOF.
-=mike=-
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Extrawurst wrote:
> the files are not present on the FTP server ?!
>
>
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.038.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp
Bill Baxter wrote:
# Bugzilla 2490: extern(C++) can not handle structs as return types
Shouldn't this only be in the D2 change log?
No, because it also affects how D1 'COM' classes work on Linux.
"The requested URL /dmd.2.022.zip was not found on this server."
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Extrawurst wrote:
>> the files are not present on the FTP server ?!
>>
>>
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.038.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:10:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>>> Version D 1.038 Dec 11, 2008
>>> New/Changed Features
>>> * Added Partial IFTI Bugzilla 493
>>
>> Hooray! Now I can finish porting std.algorithm and friends to D1!
>
> So, we
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Extrawurst wrote:
> the files are not present on the FTP server ?!
>
>
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.038.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp
the files are not present on the FTP server ?!
Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.038.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.022.zip
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
