On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 07:55:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:22:17 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 11:36:42 UTC, ketmar wrote:
it doesn't, afair, but it's quite natural. if user type was
throwed out as unused, it would be very strange to insist on
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:42:31 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
The behaviour you expect makes more sense, for sure, but I was trying to
guess what the current implementation might be doing without actually
having to try it :-)
ah, sorry. i was talking about the ideal case with ideal compiler, not
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:22:17 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 11:36:42 UTC, ketmar wrote:
it doesn't, afair, but it's quite natural. if user type was throwed out
as unused, it would be very strange to insist on keeping it's
initialization code.
Yes, but I would instead
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 11:36:42 UTC, ketmar wrote:
it doesn't, afair, but it's quite natural. if user type was
throwed out as unused, it would be very strange to insist on
keeping it's initialization code.
Personally I would be kinda pissed if the compiler did this, I
expect the static
On 6/26/15 6:00 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Also are static constructors in templated types guaranteed to run for
every instantiation?
I'd hazard to guess that the current compiler does run them, but that
they probably aren't guaranteed to run by a sufficiently smart future
compiler.
Note, I
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:07:57 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
Hmm... any reason why?
if instantiated template was not used in any code that makes
into compiled binary, compiler
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:19:33 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:07:57 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
Hmm... any reason why?
if instantiated template was not
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:07:57 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
Hmm... any reason why?
if instantiated template was not used in any code that makes
into compiled binary, compiler
p.s. also note that module can has several static ctors, i.e. this works
fine:
=== z00.d ===
module z00;
import std.stdio;
static this () { writeln(ctor0); }
static this () { writeln(ctor1); }
=== z01.d ===
module z01;
import z00;
void main () {}
this prints:
ctor0
ctor1
so you can
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:31:18 UTC, ketmar wrote:
yes. it doesn't do that now, afair, but i can't see any sense
in running code that obviously does nothing, as it's owner is
not used. module ctors was designed for such things -- i.e. to
run some code on startup. if someone is doing some
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
Hmm... any reason why?
p.s. note that static ctors are *intended* to run in runtime, not in
compile time. if compiler decides that some code is not required in
runtime,
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 03:10:44 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:31:18 UTC, ketmar wrote:
yes. it doesn't do that now, afair, but i can't see any sense in
running code that obviously does nothing, as it's owner is not used.
module ctors was designed for such things -- i.e.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
Hmm... any reason why?
if instantiated template was not used in any code that makes into
compiled binary, compiler is free to remove it with all it's ctors. it
may do
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:19:54 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 02:07:57 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:49:13 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
Hmm... any reason why?
if instantiated template was not
On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 11:36:42 UTC, ketmar wrote:
it doesn't, afair, but it's quite natural. if user type was
throwed out as unused, it would be very strange to insist on
keeping it's initialization code.
Yes, but I would instead expect that the static ctor prevents the
type from
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 20:16:10 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/27/2015 11:54 AM, Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?=
schue...@gmx.net wrote:
Also are static constructors in templated types guaranteed to
run for
every instantiation? Even if the instantiation is never
actually used
outside of
On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 22:00:54 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Are static constructors guaranteed to run if the module is
imported?
AFAIK, yes.
Also are static constructors in templated types guaranteed to
run for every instantiation? Even if the instantiation is never
actually used outside
On 06/27/2015 11:54 AM, Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?=
schue...@gmx.net wrote:
Also are static constructors in templated types guaranteed to run for
every instantiation? Even if the instantiation is never actually used
outside of compile time code, like in an alias or in a UDA?
Definitely
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:00:51 +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Are static constructors guaranteed to run if the module is imported?
Also are static constructors in templated types guaranteed to run for
every instantiation? Even if the instantiation is never actually used
outside of compile time code
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 22:20:40 UTC, ketmar wrote:
2. no.
Hmm... any reason why?
Are static constructors guaranteed to run if the module is
imported? Also are static constructors in templated types
guaranteed to run for every instantiation? Even if the
instantiation is never actually used outside of compile time
code, like in an alias or in a UDA?
21 matches
Mail list logo
