On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 01:17:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/24/2013 12:42 PM, Matthew Caron wrote:
for not null checks
if ( ptr !is null) ...
And too much perl has me wanting to write:
if (ptr is not null)
IIRC, the !is operator is thanks to bearophile.
No, it's from 2002
On 01/25/2013 06:22 AM, Don wrote:
IIRC, the !is operator is thanks to bearophile.
No, it's from 2002 (well, it was !==, renamed to !is in 2005).
Bearophile only joined us about the time D2 began, in late 2007.
Ok. How about !in then? Did he lobby for that one? :)
Ali
I found what the root of all evil was - The GC.
After disabling it, the program runs fine.
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 14:22:20 UTC, Don wrote:
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 01:17:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/24/2013 12:42 PM, Matthew Caron wrote:
for not null checks
if ( ptr !is null) ...
And too much perl has me wanting to write:
if (ptr is not null)
IIRC, the !is
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 15:15:32 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
I found what the root of all evil was - The GC.
After disabling it, the program runs fine.
Perhaps you was working with C code, GC + legacy code sometimes
lead to logical memory errors. However GC per se is unlikely to
cause any
On 01/24/2013 10:23 PM, Joel wrote:
// parallel foreach for regular files
foreach(fn ; taskPool.parallel(files,100)) {
What is the 100 number for?
It is the work unit size:
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_parallelism.html#.TaskPool
Quoting:
The number of elements processed per work unit is
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 14:43:01 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/25/2013 06:22 AM, Don wrote:
No, it's from 2002 (well, it was !==, renamed to !is in 2005).
Bearophile only joined us about the time D2 began, in late
2007.
Ok. How about !in then? Did he lobby for that one? :)
//hmmm
On 01/25/2013 10:31 AM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 14:43:01 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/25/2013 06:22 AM, Don wrote:
No, it's from 2002 (well, it was !==, renamed to !is in 2005).
Bearophile only joined us about the time D2 began, in late 2007.
Ok. How about !in
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 18:57:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/25/2013 10:31 AM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
After looking at all these 'in' should be reserved for array
searching, not pointer checking. It makes more sense to me
that way.
Sorry if I implied otherwise. Yes, 'in' should be for
Maybe. I am re-writing the code in C++ to see, and also to
compare the performance.
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 16:19:15 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 15:15:32 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
I found what the root of all evil was - The GC.
After disabling it, the program runs fine.
Perhaps you was working with C code, GC + legacy code sometimes
lead to
I have written the same program in C++ -- and I get no seg-fault. Well I
don't know for sure that something isn't wrong with my code, but I
suspect it is the GC that is messing things up.
This is definitly possible, I also had random segfaults GC related. It
worked fine on my PC, but crashed
I also wrote a copy version that orders file sequence on disk
efficiently, using write through, and posted it. This speeds
up any
subsequent file system operations done in the directory order
as if you
have done a defrag. Great for hard drives, but not needed for
ssd.
13 matches
Mail list logo
