January 01, 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9253

           Summary: Review Phobos algorithms and make them transient-safe
                    where possible
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Phobos
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx


--- Comment #0 from hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx 2013-01-01 12:09:55 PST ---
This bug is to have a central place to keep the list of Phobos algorithms found to be transient-incompatible but could potentially be made transient-compatible, so that the list doesn't get lost in the dust of forum history.

- std.algorithm.reduce (when no seed is given)
- std.algorithm.joiner (both variants have been fixed in git HEAD)
- std.algorithm.group
- std.algorithm.minCount
- std.algorithm.minPos (takes forward range; should use .save)
- std.algorithm.Levenshtein (takes forward range; should use .save)
- std.algorithm.makeIndex (takes forward range; should use .save)
- std.algorithm.splitter (takes slices without checking for isSlicable)
- std.algorithm.topNCopy
- std.algorithm.NWayUnion
- std.array.array (probably not fixable)
- std.array.insertInPlace (probably not fixable)
- std.array.join (copies input range; may not be fixable)
- std.stdio.writeln & friends (need more testing, there are some deep bits that
fail with transient ranges)

While the whole transience issue hasn't been decided yet, Andrei has agreed that those algorithms that *can* be made transience-compatible, should be. The fate of the rest will be determined when this issue has been decided on.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
January 01, 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9253


monarchdodra@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |monarchdodra@gmail.com


--- Comment #1 from monarchdodra@gmail.com 2013-01-01 13:05:23 PST ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> - std.algorithm.splitter (takes slices without checking for isSlicable)

For the record, I'm on splitter. I had a pull ready, but closed it for further improvements.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
January 14, 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9253



--- Comment #2 from monarchdodra@gmail.com 2013-01-14 13:30:18 PST ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This bug is to have a central place to keep the list of Phobos algorithms found to be transient-incompatible but could potentially be made transient-compatible, so that the list doesn't get lost in the dust of forum history.
> 
> - std.algorithm.reduce (when no seed is given)
> - std.algorithm.joiner (both variants have been fixed in git HEAD)
> - std.algorithm.group
> - std.algorithm.minCount
> - std.algorithm.minPos (takes forward range; should use .save)
> - std.algorithm.Levenshtein (takes forward range; should use .save)
> - std.algorithm.makeIndex (takes forward range; should use .save)
> - std.algorithm.splitter (takes slices without checking for isSlicable)
> - std.algorithm.topNCopy
> - std.algorithm.NWayUnion
> - std.array.array (probably not fixable)
> - std.array.insertInPlace (probably not fixable)
> - std.array.join (copies input range; may not be fixable)
> - std.stdio.writeln & friends (need more testing, there are some deep bits that
> fail with transient ranges)
> 
> While the whole transience issue hasn't been decided yet, Andrei has agreed that those algorithms that *can* be made transience-compatible, should be. The fate of the rest will be determined when this issue has been decided on.

I just fixed minPos to use safe, and it should now be transient safe. No unittest though (yet) to prevent future breakage.

I'm fixing minCount: It will be transient safe for forward ranges. Input ranges will the thoroughly unsafe though, with no possibility of workaround.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
January 15, 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9253



--- Comment #3 from hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx 2013-01-14 21:44:56 PST ---
Yeah, some algorithms will have to be transient-unsafe, because it will either introduce unacceptable overhead, or it's plain impossible due to the nature of the algorithm. These cases will just have to be left as-is.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home