On 10/17/2016 05:44 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Monday, 17 October 2016 at 02:08:44 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Listen, I understand you are not interested in spending loads of time
>> on boring polishing of formalities. We all do this in our spare time
>> so that is to be expected.
>>
>
> I spent fuck 4
On Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:23:40 UTC, Ethan Watson wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 10:32:56 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Better:
void f(ref Vector v);
void f(Vector v) { f(v); }
f(Vector(10,20,30));
Suitable enough for simple functions. But beyond that becomes
maintena
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 10:32:56 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Better:
void f(ref Vector v);
void f(Vector v) { f(v); }
f(Vector(10,20,30));
Suitable enough for simple functions. But beyond that becomes
maintenance hell.
For example:
void func2( ref const( Vector ) v1, ref c
On 18/10/16 07:34, Walter Bright wrote:
You've gotten user defined attributes in the language (and very
undemocratically, I might add!), Win64 support, VC++ symbolic debug
info, a number of improvements to C++ class support, SIMD support, SIMD
intrinsics, pragma inline, yeah, we never listen to y
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 17:54:15 UTC, Namespace wrote:
That's more ore less the magic behind auto ref.
Thanks. Failed to find the related bit in the spec.
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 17:42:39 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 06:30:15 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 02:54:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
I just want to be able to pass an rvalue to a function that
receives a
const ref... that's why I came to
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 06:30:15 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 02:54:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
I just want to be able to pass an rvalue to a function that
receives a
const ref... that's why I came to this forum in the first
place like,
7 years ago. 7 years later... stil
On 10/19/16 5:11 AM, Ethan Watson wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 05:41:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
People just want to be able to do this:
void f(ref const(Vector) v);
f(v1 + v2);
or:
f(Vector(10,20,30));
That is all. The rval produces a temporary, and the temporary is
passed to the
Better:
void f(ref Vector v);
void f(Vector v) { f(v); }
f(Vector(10,20,30));
On 10/19/2016 2:11 AM, Ethan Watson wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 05:41:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
People just want to be able to do this:
void f(ref const(Vector) v);
f(v1 + v2);
or:
f(Vector(10,20,30));
That is all. The rval produces a temporary, and the temporary is passed to th
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 09:34:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
I dunno how it could have not been considered, since it was the
exact
example I've given every time, and the exact case that
motivated my first
(and many subsequent) posts on this forum back when we still
worked at
Krome.. all this time
On 19 October 2016 at 19:11, Ethan Watson via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 05:41:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> People just want to be able to do this:
>>
>> void f(ref const(Vector) v);
>>
>> f(v1 + v2);
>>
>> or:
>>
>> f(Vector(10,20,30))
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 05:41:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
People just want to be able to do this:
void f(ref const(Vector) v);
f(v1 + v2);
or:
f(Vector(10,20,30));
That is all. The rval produces a temporary, and the temporary
is passed to the function.
Probably worth pointing out t
On 19 October 2016 at 06:22, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 04:15 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
>
>>
>> I think I get it; I'm just not sure given the comments that pop up in
>> the forum. Isn't one of the main reasons distinguishing between the
On 19 October 2016 at 04:07, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 01:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> Andrei has been very vocal about how
>> rvalue references were a horrible mistake in C++
>>
>
> Please misquote appropri
On 19 October 2016 at 03:51, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 13:36:42 Namespace via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 09:50:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 06:30:15 UTC, Namespa
On 18 October 2016 at 14:34, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 7:54 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> You mean like that time I spent at least 2 years fighting for
>> final-by-default, won over the entire community except for a single
>> per
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 20:22:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/18/2016 04:15 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
I think I get it; I'm just not sure given the comments that
pop up in
the forum. Isn't one of the main reasons distinguishing
between these two?
void fun(ref const Foo);
void f
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 20:22:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/18/2016 04:15 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
I think I get it; I'm just not sure given the comments that
pop up in
the forum. Isn't one of the main reasons distinguishing
between these two?
void fun(ref const Foo);
void f
On 10/18/2016 12:43 PM, bachmeier wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 18:15:18 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
It would be great if we had detailed rationale articles for these non-obvious
decisions.
We do, on the wiki:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Language_design_discussions
Feel free to add anything that
On 10/18/2016 11:15 AM, ag0aep6g wrote:
It would be great if we had detailed rationale articles for these non-obvious
decisions.
That's what FAQs are for, and if someone wants to collect Andrei's posts on the
matter and distill them into a FAQ:
Why doesn't D do rvalue references?
that w
On 18.10.2016 20:15, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 10/18/2016 07:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Andrei decided ages ago that he didn't think that having const ref take
rvalues was a good idea and that he doesn't think that it's a big deal. I
don't recall whether Walter has said much on th
On 10/18/2016 04:15 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
I think I get it; I'm just not sure given the comments that pop up in
the forum. Isn't one of the main reasons distinguishing between these two?
void fun(ref const Foo);
void fun(Foo);
If they can't be distinguished, you don't get move semantics "for
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 18:33:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 20:15:18 ag0aep6g via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
First, so that people get a nice prepared answer for why D is
different. I can't confidently spell out why D doesn't allow
passing an rvalues in a const r
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 18:15:18 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
It would be great if we had detailed rationale articles for
these non-obvious decisions.
We do, on the wiki:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Language_design_discussions
Feel free to add anything that you think would be of interest to
others.
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 17:51:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 13:36:42 Namespace via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 09:50:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 06:30:15 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 20:15:18 ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> First, so that people get a nice prepared answer for why D is different.
> I can't confidently spell out why D doesn't allow passing an rvalues in
> a const ref parameter, and I suspect that only Andrei really can.
He's expl
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 14:07:06 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 01:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > Andrei has been very vocal about how
> > rvalue references were a horrible mistake in C++
>
> Please misquote appropriately :o). I said binding
On 10/18/2016 07:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Andrei decided ages ago that he didn't think that having const ref take
rvalues was a good idea and that he doesn't think that it's a big deal. I
don't recall whether Walter has said much on the issue, but AFAIK, he hasn't
said any
On 10/18/2016 01:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Andrei has been very vocal about how
rvalue references were a horrible mistake in C++
Please misquote appropriately :o). I said binding rvalues to const ref
is the mistake that led to the rvalue references complication. That's
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 13:36:42 Namespace via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 09:50:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 06:30:15 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 02:54:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >>> I just want to be able to pass
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 09:50:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 06:30:15 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 02:54:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
I just want to be able to pass an rvalue to a function that
receives a
const ref... that's why I came to this forum i
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 06:30:15 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 02:54:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
I just want to be able to pass an rvalue to a function that
receives a
const ref... that's why I came to this forum in the first
place like,
7 years ago. 7 years later... stil
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 02:54:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
I just want to be able to pass an rvalue to a function that
receives a
const ref... that's why I came to this forum in the first place
like,
7 years ago. 7 years later... still can't.
I recently wrote a PR for p0nce D idioms, which show
On 10/17/2016 7:54 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
You mean like that time I spent at least 2 years fighting for
final-by-default, won over the entire community except for a single
person who said they were indifferent (who I forget who was).
Even you begrudgingly conceded (or at least appeared
On 17 October 2016 at 15:02, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 3:17 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>
>> Long story short, it si clearly a waste of time. Qualifying the process
>> would be
>> an understatement.
>>
>> Some specifically DIP27 has been written in Feb 2913, following variou
On Monday, 17 October 2016 at 06:58:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/17/2016 02:39 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-10-17 04:08, Dicebot wrote:
Listen, I understand you are not interested in spending loads
of time on
boring polishing of formalities. We all do this in our spare
time so
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 at 22:17:15 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
[...]
FWIW ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzc7a3McOs&feature=youtu.be?list=PLHTh1InhhwT7J5jl4vAhO1WvGHUUFgUQH&t=3757
On 10/17/2016 02:58 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Looking at https://wiki.dlang.org/?title=DIP27&action=history, I'm
seeing 10 approved DIPs.
Copypasta error, I meant
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/archive/README.md -
thanks Timon for the correction. -- Andrei
On 10/17/2016 12:45 AM, ZombineDev wrote:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/16
Thanks. I hadn't seen it earlier because I had neglected to look in the closed
list.
On Monday, 17 October 2016 at 05:02:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/16/2016 3:17 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Long story short, it si clearly a waste of time. Qualifying
the process would be
an understatement.
Some specifically DIP27 has been written in Feb 2913,
following various
discussion at th
On 10/17/2016 02:39 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-10-17 04:08, Dicebot wrote:
Listen, I understand you are not interested in spending loads of time on
boring polishing of formalities. We all do this in our spare time so
that is to be expected.
But what you say here only shows that process i
On 10/16/2016 11:39 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Most likely Andrei already merged Walter's PR for DMD for this DIP,
> three weeks ago after being open for two hours.
What are you referring to?
On 2016-10-17 04:08, Dicebot wrote:
Listen, I understand you are not interested in spending loads of time on
boring polishing of formalities. We all do this in our spare time so
that is to be expected.
But what you say here only shows that process is working as intended
Well, the designed of t
On 10/16/2016 3:17 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Long story short, it si clearly a waste of time. Qualifying the process would be
an understatement.
Some specifically DIP27 has been written in Feb 2913, following various
discussion at that time. I pushed it at the time. I moved it to the new git DIP
repo
On Monday, 17 October 2016 at 02:08:44 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Listen, I understand you are not interested in spending loads
of time on boring polishing of formalities. We all do this in
our spare time so that is to be expected.
I spent fuck 4;5 years on that thing. Don't come at me saying I'm
Listen, I understand you are not interested in spending loads of
time on boring polishing of formalities. We all do this in our
spare time so that is to be expected.
But what you say here only shows that process is working as
intended - and that it is not suitable for you. Quote from
readme:
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 at 22:17:15 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Long story short, it si clearly a waste of time. Qualifying the
process would be an understatement.
Some specifically DIP27 has been written in Feb 2913, following
various discussion at that time. I pushed it at the time. I
moved it
48 matches
Mail list logo
