Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:10:27 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
So my suspicion is correct, then? That is:
scope int delegate() b;
b = { ... };
Will allocate on the heap?
Yes. The scope for
Sergey Gromov wrote
Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:10:27 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
So my suspicion is correct, then? That is:
scope int delegate() b;
b = { ... };
Will allocate on the heap?
Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:26:31 -0700, Russell Lewis wrote:
The thing to remember is that scope is *not* transitive. Scope limits
the most shallow reference, *not* not anything deeper. It is perfectly
valid to have a scope pointer to a non-scope thing. The point of scope
is to enforce that
Brad Roberts wrote:
Accepting dubious
definitions like 'public private int foo' and the above make life harder
than it needs to be.
The code:
public private int foo;
produces the error message:
test.d(1): redundant protection attribute
Walter Bright wrote
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
So my suspicion is correct, then? That is:
scope int delegate() b;
b = { ... };
Will allocate on the heap?
Yes. The scope for delegates takes effect as a parameter storage class,
not a local variable storage class. The reason is because it
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
So my suspicion is correct, then? That is:
scope int delegate() b;
b = { ... };
Will allocate on the heap?
Yes. The scope for delegates takes effect as a parameter storage class,
not a local variable storage class.
Walter Bright:
In order to make that work, the compiler would have to do full escape
analysis, which is a lot of work to implement.
But the D2 programmer may enjoy some ways to state what he/she/shi wants
anyway, like in a cast, to make the compiler behave like the D1 compiler and
avoid a
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Walter Bright wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
So my suspicion is correct, then? That is:
scope int delegate() b;
b = { ... };
Will allocate on the heap?
Yes. The scope for delegates takes effect as a parameter storage class, not a
local variable storage
Brad Roberts:
Walter, this is yet more evidence that shows that accepting and ignoring
these sorts of modifiers is the wrong thing to do. Accepting dubious
definitions like 'public private int foo' and the above make life harder
than it needs to be.
I agree. What's the rationale behind
Jarrett Billingsley:
Can you try declaring b as a nested function instead of as a delegate
literal and see if that helps?
I think that may lead to nonworking code.
(why are you declaring it the way you are, anyway?
Here you can find explanations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_or_boy_test
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM, bearophile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you try declaring b as a nested function instead of as a delegate
literal and see if that helps?
I think that may lead to nonworking code.
Uh, why? You are declaring the delegate as 'scope', yes? Meaning you
don't
bearophile wrote:
To test the new scoping features of D 2.021 I have used a small stressing
program, coming from this page, originally by Knuth:
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Man_or_boy_test
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_or_boy_test
My purpose is to see the D2 compiler being
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:18:27 -0800, Robert Fraser wrote:
bearophile wrote:
To test the new scoping features of D 2.021 I have used a small
stressing program, coming from this page, originally by Knuth:
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Man_or_boy_test
More info:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
The reason I wonder is because I would expect that the compiler is
still allocating the delegate on the heap if you use the first syntax.
(the second is also shorter and clearer.)
There's no reason to suspect. Just obj2asm the output and see.
Furthermore, better
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Walter Bright
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
The reason I wonder is because I would expect that the compiler is
still allocating the delegate on the heap if you use the first syntax.
(the second is also shorter and clearer.)
There's no
Walter Bright:
There's no reason to suspect. Just obj2asm the output and see.
Furthermore, better results will come from:
int b() {
k -= 1;
return a(k, b(), x1, x2, x3, x4);
};
instead of using the delegate.
I don't fully understand what's happening, maybe I am
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:24:57 -0500, Jarrett Billingsley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
scope int b() { .. }
The reason I wonder is because I would expect that the compiler is
still allocating the delegate on the heap if you use the first syntax.
(the second is also shorter and clearer.)
Just as a
Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:02:54 -0500, bearophile wrote:
While on DMD 1.036 the following code:
// code #2
import std.c.stdio: printf;
int a(int k, lazy int x1, lazy int x2, lazy int x3, lazy int x4, lazy int x5)
{
int b() {
k -= 1;
return a(k, b(), x1, x2, x3, x4);
Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:33:35 + (UTC), Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:18:27 -0800, Robert Fraser wrote:
Try marking all the lazy parameters as scope (lazy creates
delegates).
From change log: The lazy storage class now implies scope so that lazy
arguments won't trigger a
Sergey Gromov:
Remove -inline from your compiler options, and #2 compiles and runs
faster in both D1 and D2 than #1.
lazy seems to do something funny when -inline is in effect.
You are right, I have tested it on D1.
I think the codepad doesn't use -inline, that's why #2 works there.
#2 also
Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:19:38 -0500, bearophile wrote:
So compiling #2 witout -inline in D2 fulfulls my original desire of
computing up to N=25 with D2 :-)
I presume the -inline uncovers a small bug of DMD, that will be fixed.
I think so, too.
But what interests me more now is to understand
27.11.08 в 01:12 Robert Jacques в своём письме писал(а):
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:24:57 -0500, Jarrett Billingsley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
scope int b() { .. }
The reason I wonder is because I would expect that the compiler is
still allocating the delegate on the heap if you use the first
22 matches
Mail list logo
