On 01/04/18 04:56, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Another potential issue is whether any of this does or should relate to
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/109
and it's solution for hooking into to moves. I'm not at all sure that what
happens with that needs to be related to this at all, but it might
On 4/3/18 5:44 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 04/03/2018 10:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 4/3/18 4:26 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
[...]
If there's a problem with running two postblits on the same field,
then I think constructors probably have similar issue. I'm having a
hard time finding a good examp
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 04:49:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
This is not officially reviewable yet, but conveys the gist and
could use some early feedback. Any insight will be appreciated.
I'm delighted to see this DIP! Best of luck.
If there is a root class, I agree that it should b
On 4/4/18 1:32 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 00:49:10 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I'm working on a simple older idea to get it out of the way in
preparation for the more difficult DIPs to come:
https://github.com/andralex/DIPs/blob/ProtoObject/DIPs/DI
On 4/4/18 12:49 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm working on a simple older idea to get it out of the way in
preparation for the more difficult DIPs to come:
https://github.com/andralex/DIPs/blob/ProtoObject/DIPs/DIP.md
This is not officially reviewable yet, but conveys the gist and could
On Monday, 26 March 2018 at 18:28:09 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Monday, 26 March 2018 at 16:24:10 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Monday, 26 March 2018 at 15:34:12 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Monday, 26 March 2018 at 14:16:28 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
[...]
Even with a recent DUB binary (e.g. 1.7.2 or 1.8.0)?
(=2.0
On 04/04/2018 12:37 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
With structs, we have the possibility of initialization via different
mechanisms: constructor, postblit, .init. All of these are supported by
the struct member, but currently you can only invoke postblit if you are
in a postblit. And only at t
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 04:49:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'm working on a simple older idea to get it out of the way in
preparation for the more difficult DIPs to come:
https://github.com/andralex/DIPs/blob/ProtoObject/DIPs/DIP.md
This is not officially reviewable yet, but co
On 2018-04-01 22:24:54 +, Seb said:
Bug. Imho dub should compare the timestamp of its dependencies and see
whether they are newer than the target like e.g. Make.
https://github.com/dlang/dub/issues/new
Just found out, that I had two versions of DUB installed... one very
old. Going to x-
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 13:28:39 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
On 2018-04-01 22:24:54 +, Seb said:
Bug. Imho dub should compare the timestamp of its dependencies
and see whether they are newer than the target like e.g. Make.
https://github.com/dlang/dub/issues/new
Just found out, th
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 04:49:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'm working on a simple older idea to get it out of the way in
preparation for the more difficult DIPs to come:
https://github.com/andralex/DIPs/blob/ProtoObject/DIPs/DIP.md
This is not officially reviewable yet, but co
On 04/04/2018 09:18 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 04:49:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm working on a simple older idea to get it out of the way in
preparation for the more difficult DIPs to come:
https://github.com/andralex/DIPs/blob/ProtoObject/DIPs/DIP.md
T
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 15:18:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 04/04/2018 09:18 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 04:49:10 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
[...]
No attempts to make class deallocation @nogc attribute
friendly? This is a major PIA for me. The curr
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 15:18:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 04/04/2018 09:18 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 04:49:10 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm working on a simple older idea to get it out of the way
in preparation for the more difficult DIPs to come
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 15:18:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 04/04/2018 09:18 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
No attempts to make class deallocation @nogc attribute
friendly? This is a major PIA for me. The current attempts at
this involve various workarounds (See automem library for
examp
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 14:47:03 Luís Marques via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Regarding the output range replacing toString. That's an obvious
> improvement. Yet, before that is set in stone, give the following
> at least some thought. I've always wondered about the use of
> output ranges. Yes, the
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
[ ... ]
Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler
benchmarking, let alone idle chattaroo in the forums - is where
we need to hit. What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a
high-impact preapproved item
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler
benchmarking, let alone idle chattaroo in the forums - is where
we need to hit. What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a
high-impact preapproved item of great
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 19:25:43 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
[ ... ]
Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler
benchmarking, let alone idle chattaroo in the forums - is
where we need to hit. What we hav
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 14:47:03 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
Regarding the output range replacing toString. That's an
obvious improvement. Yet, before that is set in stone, give the
following at least some thought.
It's a bit late for that ;)
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5991
For
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:04:04 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler
benchmarking, let alone idle chattaroo in the forums - is
where we need to hit. What we have here,
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:29:19 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:04:04 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler
benchmarking, let alone idle chattar
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 08:29:19PM +, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:04:04 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > > Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler
> > > benchm
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:29:19 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:04:04 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler
benchmarking, let alone idle chattar
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:02:56 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 19:25:43 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
[ ... ]
Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler
benchmarking, let alone
On 4/1/2018 3:49 AM, bachmeier wrote:
What I was wondering too. I mean, breaking changes just don't happen to this
language. Now there will be, without even an indication of how existing code
would have to be rewritten, or how this large-scale breakage is different than
the breakages that just
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 22:30:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/1/2018 3:49 AM, bachmeier wrote:
What I was wondering too. I mean, breaking changes just don't
happen to this language. Now there will be, without even an
indication of how existing code would have to be rewritten, or
how th
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 03:30:39PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 3:49 AM, bachmeier wrote:
> > What I was wondering too. I mean, breaking changes just don't happen
> > to this language. Now there will be, without even an indication of
> > how existing code would have t
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 22:41:39 Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 22:30:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 4/1/2018 3:49 AM, bachmeier wrote:
> >> What I was wondering too. I mean, breaking changes just don't
> >> happen to this language. Now there will be,
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 15:51:25 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 03:30:39PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > On 4/1/2018 3:49 AM, bachmeier wrote:
> > > What I was wondering too. I mean, breaking changes just don't happen
> > > to this language.
On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 07:15:36 UTC, Mike Franklin
wrote:
It's a really old bug, and top-voted in bugzilla...
And a really frustrating one. That's a shame we had to launch a
special campaign to finally notice this bug, despite it being the
top-voted one. And I hope this time Walter
31 matches
Mail list logo
