On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 03:52:39 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
First of all thank you for your responses!
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 02:53:00 UTC, Filip Bystricky wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 01:56:11 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
[...]
However, in many cases it is unacceptable to have
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 03:13:14 UTC, Filip Bystricky wrote:
Oh and I forgot to mention: another use-case for this would be
for arrays. For manually managed arrays like
std.container.array, it would make it possible to transfer
ownership of individual objects from the array back to the
prog
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 02:53:00 UTC, Filip Bystricky wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 01:56:11 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
[...]
However, in many cases it is unacceptable to have to prevent
the whole block from being freed (especially if the memory is
managed by a compacting gc).
Then
Oh and I forgot to mention: another use-case for this would be
for arrays. For manually managed arrays like std.container.array,
it would make it possible to transfer ownership of individual
objects from the array back to the program after the array goes
out of scope. For gc slices, it could en
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 01:56:11 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 17:06:10 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/02/2017 07:56 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 02:51:49 UTC, Filip Bystricky wrote:
Anyone?
The answer is no.
Partial deallocation in an arbitrary
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 17:06:10 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/02/2017 07:56 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 02:51:49 UTC, Filip Bystricky wrote:
Anyone?
The answer is no.
Partial deallocation in an arbitrary fashion is not advisable.
And there are no standard library mec
On 07/02/2017 07:56 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 02:51:49 UTC, Filip Bystricky wrote:
Anyone?
The answer is no.
Partial deallocation in an arbitrary fashion is not advisable.
And there are no standard library mechanisms for it.
Would it be possible to write a custom std
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 02:51:49 UTC, Filip Bystricky wrote:
Anyone?
The answer is no.
Partial deallocation in an arbitrary fashion is not advisable.
And there are no standard library mechanisms for it.
Anyone?
Hello!
I'm implementing a persistent hash trie (like in clojure/scala).
Every 'persisting' insertion involves allocating a fixed number
(6) of nodes (each chunk is a fixed width ranging between 1 and
~33 words).
Basically, this data structure always allocates a whole branch at
a time, but t
10 matches
Mail list logo
