> Can we commit to having stuff done by Feb 15 for a release on Mar 1? -- Andrei

Sounds good, work on regressions should start soon and we should no longer add features.

On 30.01.15 23:24, AndyC wrote:
> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 22:06:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Time to button this up and release it. Remaining regressions:
>>
>> https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&list_id=192294&query_format=advanced
>>
> 
> How about this one: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7762
> 
> Not sure if its supposed to compile, but it was reported master wouldn't.
> 
> -Andy

It is related to new rules with -property flag.

import std.stdio;

int f(int a){
    return a + 10;
}

void main() {
    auto x = 20;
    writeln(x.f);
}

This compiles with 2.66.1, but with master:
Error: not a property x.f

There are such things in Phobos (std\functional and ?).

On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 09:14:14 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Sounds good, work on regressions should start soon and we should no longer add features.

You are not going to do a release branch?

On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 23:17:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Sorry, I thought that was in the bag. Keep current semantics, call it chunkBy. Add the key to each group when the predicate is unary. Make sure aggregate() works nice with chunkBy().

I might miss some information on this, so please forgive my naive question. Your requirements seem to be contradictory to me.

1. aggregate expects a range of ranges
2. you ask chunkBy to return something that is not a range of ranges
3. you ask chunkBy to play along nicely with aggregate

There are certainly ways to make this work. Adding a special version of aggregate comes to mind. However, I fail to see the rational behind this.

To me the beauty of range is the composibility of "simple" constructs to create complex behavior. The current chunkBy does not need to be changed to "add the key to each group when the predicate is unary":

 r.map!(pred, "a")
  .chunkBy!("a[0]")
  .map!(inner => tuple(inner.front[0], inner.map!"a[1]"));

So I'd like to know why the above is inferior to a rework of the chunkBy's implementation. Maybe this is a question for D.learn.

On 2/2/15 2:42 PM, "Ulrich =?UTF-8?B?S8O8dHRsZXIi?= <kuettler@gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 23:17:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Sorry, I thought that was in the bag. Keep current semantics, call it
>> chunkBy. Add the key to each group when the predicate is unary. Make
>> sure aggregate() works nice with chunkBy().
>
> I might miss some information on this, so please forgive my naive
> question. Your requirements seem to be contradictory to me.
>
> 1. aggregate expects a range of ranges

Probably we need to change that because aggregate should integrate seamlessly with chunkBy.

> 2. you ask chunkBy to return something that is not a range of ranges

Yah.

> 3. you ask chunkBy to play along nicely with aggregate

Yah.

> There are certainly ways to make this work. Adding a special version of
> aggregate comes to mind. However, I fail to see the rational behind this.

Rationale as discussed is that the key value for each group is useful information. Returning a range of ranges would waste that information forcing e.g. its recomputation.

> To me the beauty of range is the composibility of "simple" constructs to
> create complex behavior. The current chunkBy does not need to be changed
> to "add the key to each group when the predicate is unary":
>
>   r.map!(pred, "a")
>    .chunkBy!("a[0]")
>    .map!(inner => tuple(inner.front[0], inner.map!"a[1]"));
>
> So I'd like to know why the above is inferior to a rework of the
> chunkBy's implementation. Maybe this is a question for D.learn.

Wouldn't that force recomputation if a more complex expression replaced a[0]?


Andrei

On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 09:14:14 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> Can we commit to having stuff done by Feb 15 for a release on Mar 1? -- Andrei
>
> Sounds good, work on regressions should start soon and we should no longer add features.

Martin

Can you take a look at https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14126 ?
Not sure if this regression is related to recent changes in the GC. But if it is, it might be prudent to postpone merging in the changes into 2.067.

- Puneet

On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 03:00:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/2/15 2:42 PM, "Ulrich =?UTF-8?B?S8O8dHRsZXIi?= <kuettler@gmail.com>" wrote:
>> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 23:17:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Sorry, I thought that was in the bag. Keep current semantics, call it
>>> chunkBy. Add the key to each group when the predicate is unary. Make
>>> sure aggregate() works nice with chunkBy().
>>
>> I might miss some information on this, so please forgive my naive
>> question. Your requirements seem to be contradictory to me.
>>
>> 1. aggregate expects a range of ranges
>
> Probably we need to change that because aggregate should integrate seamlessly with chunkBy.
>
>> 2. you ask chunkBy to return something that is not a range of ranges
>
> Yah.
>
>> 3. you ask chunkBy to play along nicely with aggregate
>
> Yah.
>
>> There are certainly ways to make this work. Adding a special version of
>> aggregate comes to mind. However, I fail to see the rational behind this.
>
> Rationale as discussed is that the key value for each group is useful information. Returning a range of ranges would waste that information forcing e.g. its recomputation.
>

I understand and agree. My suggestion aims to avoid this particular waste. See below.

>> To me the beauty of range is the composibility of "simple" constructs to
>> create complex behavior. The current chunkBy does not need to be changed
>> to "add the key to each group when the predicate is unary":
>>
>>  r.map!(pred, "a")
>>   .chunkBy!("a[0]")
>>   .map!(inner => tuple(inner.front[0], inner.map!"a[1]"));
>>
>> So I'd like to know why the above is inferior to a rework of the
>> chunkBy's implementation. Maybe this is a question for D.learn.
>
> Wouldn't that force recomputation if a more complex expression replaced a[0]?

I do not think you ever want to replace a[0] here. In the code above the (original) predicate to chunkBy is pred. The idea is to evaluate the predicate outside of chunkBy. Create a range of tuples from the original range, chunk the range of tuples and construct the desired result from the chunked range of tuples.

// create a range of `tuple(pred(a), a)`
r.map!(pred, "a")

// chunk the range of tuples based of the first tuple element
// this results in a range of ranges of tuples
   .chunkBy!("a[0]")

// convert the inner ranges of tuples to a tuple of the predicate applied and the appropriate range
   .map!(inner => tuple(inner.front[0], inner.map!"a[1]"));

The construction of a range of tuples is not for free. On the bright side:

* you only do it when you need it
* if your predicate is that heavy, you might want to precompute it anyway
* a modified chunkBy is not exactly free either (and you pay the price even if you do not need the key value)

Now I learned that map is very lazy and applies the function inside front(). Thus, the above might actually result in multiple evaluations of the predicate. Luckily, there is the new cache function:

auto chunkByStar(alias pred, Range)(Range r)
{
return r.map!(pred, "a")
   .cache
   .chunkBy!("a[0]")
   .map!(inner => tuple(inner.front[0], inner.map!"a[1]"));
}

My point here is, we can construct a version of chunkBy that does not waste the key value with modest means. With great power comes great flexibility. I wanted to sneak this in as an example, because it is not clear what eventual users might actually need.

On the other hand there is no limit to the special cases we could add. aggregate might not be the only function to work with chunkBy. And even an aggregate function that takes a tuple of a range and something else and only uses the range seems wrong to me, given expressive the power D has. The transformation of the range is just on map away:

chunkByStar!(...)(r).map!"a[1]".aggregate!max

Then again, I might be missing something huge here.

On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 02:22:59 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> I don't know how the .html files that are included in dmd.zip are generated. Please try and see if it works for you. If not, I can look into it if you open-source your process.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/blob/4d57e861a2b15767f5e004b74a4578205dc03e3e/create_dmd_release/create_dmd_release.d#L784

Not sure if anyone is actually using those HTML files.