On Sat., 20 Oct. 2018, 7:00 am Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 02:09:56 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
> Scherkl wrote:
> > On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 00:46:36 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
> > wrote:
> >> Mutable = value may change
>
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 02:09:56 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
Scherkl wrote:
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 00:46:36 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
Mutable = value may change
const = I will not change the value
immutable = the value will not change
unshared = I (well the current thread) owns
On Sat., 20 Oct. 2018, 12:10 am Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d,
wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 06:04:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > How can you find that such a construct carries its weight with
> > respect
> > to its rare-ness, when its usefulness is very limited to begin
> >
On Sat., 20 Oct. 2018, 12:10 am Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d,
wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 06:04:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > How can you find that such a construct carries its weight with
> > respect
> > to its rare-ness, when its usefulness is very limited to begin
> >
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 06:04:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
How can you find that such a construct carries its weight with
respect
to its rare-ness, when its usefulness is very limited to begin
with?
I suggested it only because of the resistance to the proposed
implicit cast to shared. But I
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:05 PM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> Therefore it is possible to implicitly cast from mutable or
> immutable to const but not in any other direction.
>
> I think for unshared, shared and threadsave it should be the same:
> The second is a
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:45 PM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 18:11:50 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:45 AM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 00:46:36 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
Mutable = value may change
const = I will not change the value
immutable = the value will not change
unshared = I (well the current thread) owns the reference
shared = reference not owned, no unordered access, no
(unordered)
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 00:00:49 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
Scherkl wrote:
Hmm.
mutable, immutable and const form a triple, the second is a
declaration attribute, the last an parameter attribute,
indicating that you don't want to modify the parameter, may it
be because you can't (as it is
On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 15:46:20 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 13:40:54 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
Scherkl wrote:
Conflating "shared" and "threadsave" in that manner was, I
think, the biggest mistake of your proposal.
He talked about it in a previous thread, and
On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 18:11:50 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:45 AM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
> [...] What issues am I failing to address?
[...] Another point is the part of "how can the
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:45 AM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >> What cracks me up with Manu's proposal is that it is its
> >> simplicity and
On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 13:40:54 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
Scherkl wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh
wrote:
What cracks me up with Manu's proposal is that it is its
simplicity and lack of ambition that
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
What cracks me up with Manu's proposal is that it is its
simplicity and lack of ambition that is criticized the most.
shared is a clusterfuck, according to what I gathered
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 21:14:54 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 20:59:59 UTC, Erik van Velzen
wrote:
[...]
Quite a simple reason: it was years ago, however old you are
now you were younger and less experienced, and probably didn't
understand something
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 20:59:59 UTC, Erik van Velzen
wrote:
Let me start by saying I'm willing to admit that I was
factually wrong.
Also keep in mind that "me having an impression" is something
that is can't be independently verified and you'll have to take
my at my word. Just
Let me start by saying I'm willing to admit that I was factually
wrong.
Also keep in mind that "me having an impression" is something
that is can't be independently verified and you'll have to take
my at my word. Just that the exact reason for that impression was
lost to the sands of
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 19:09:42 UTC, Patrick Schluter
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
Elaborate on this... It's clearly over-ambitious if anything.
What issues am I failing to address? I'm creating a situation
where using
shared has a meaning, is
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 20:10:18 UTC, Erik van Velzen
wrote:
When shared stood up in its current form, expectation was made
"this will be threadsafe automatically - we'll figure out how
in the future".
It never was like that. At all. I don't think either Walter or
Andrei are
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:09:42PM +, Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
> I often have the impression that a lot of things are going slower than
> necessary because a mentality where the perfect is in the way of good.
That is indeed an all-too-frequent malady around these
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 17:01:46 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:31:33 UTC, Vijay Nayar wrote:
Imagine a simple algorithm that does logic on very long
numbers, split into bytes. One multi-threaded implementation
may use 4 threads. The first operating
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Thu., 18 Oct. 2018, 5:05 am Patrick Schluter via
Digitalmars-d, < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh
wrote:
>> If something might be used by someone else it's better not
>>
Pardon the snarkiness, I probably need to get some air from that
other shared thread.
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:31:33 UTC, Vijay Nayar wrote:
Imagine a simple algorithm that does logic on very long
numbers, split into bytes. One multi-threaded implementation
may use 4 threads. The first operating on bytes 0, 4, 8, etc.
The second operating on bytes 1, 5, 9, etc.
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:12:49 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hi,
reading the other shared thread "shared - i need to be
useful"(https://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.4299.1539629222.29801.digitalmar...@puremagic.com)
let me to an important realisation concerning the reason
shareding
On Thu., 18 Oct. 2018, 5:05 am Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >> If something might be used by someone else it's better not to
> >> touch it, unless one has confirmation it is not used
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If something might be used by someone else it's better not to
touch it, unless one has confirmation it is not used by
someone else.
This is what shared has to enforce.
Yes. But how can the compiler statically verify this?
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The problem, of course, is that they are also charged
particles, and the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom in
place would be greatly disturbed if two atoms were to occupy
the same space simultaneously, leading to a (very
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:13:37PM +, Stefan Koch via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh
wrote:
[...]
> But nobody will be building a fusion engine out of race
> conditions anytime
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:13:37PM +, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> > But nobody will be building a fusion engine out of race conditions
> > anytime in the foreseeable future. :-D
[...]
> Now my analogy sounds
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Nah, that's not even anywhere close to nuclear fusion.
The atoms which make up your body (and basically everything
else) are mostly empty, with just a tiny speck of a nucleus,
and a bunch of extremely tiny electrons zipping
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:55:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
But nobody will be building a fusion engine out of race
conditions anytime in the foreseeable future. :-D
We should be so blessed...
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:29:07PM +, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:12:49 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> > [another person] cannot actually occupy the same space. It is
> > physically impossible.
>
> Actually, that's not quite true, If they were to try
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:40:35 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
Now, I perfectly understand what Manu wants: for `shared` to
stop being a stupid keyword that nobody uses, and start
bringing in value to the language. At the moment, the compiler
happily allows you to write and read
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:29:07 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
in any case it would certainly mess up
the state of everyone involved; which is exactly what happens
win multi-threaded situations.
^ that is very true. And that is why:
- one must not keep shared and local data close
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 21:12:49 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
[another person] cannot actually occupy the same space. It is
physically impossible.
Actually, that's not quite true, If they were to try hard enough
the result would be nuclear fusion, (I am guessing (I am not a
phsysist)),
36 matches
Mail list logo
