arrays: if(null == [ ]) (page 2)

On 15-05-2012 15:22, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen > <xtzgzorex@gmail.com <mailto:xtzgzorex@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Yes, because using a Phobos function in druntime is perfectly > possible! Totally! > -- > - Alex > > > Isn't it obvious what needs to be done? Come on, it's no too hard to see... > > > -- > Bye, > Gor Gyolchanyan. No, it should not be moved to druntime. druntime is the low-level abstraction layer over the compiler, nothing else. Further, all the write* functions perform GC allocation, which is unacceptable in druntime. -- - Alex

Even if it's wrong to move writef to druntime, the toUTFz is still a very small word to write. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex@gmail.com>wrote: > On 15-05-2012 15:22, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: > >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex@gmail.com <mailto:xtzgzorex@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, because using a Phobos function in druntime is perfectly >> possible! Totally! >> -- >> - Alex >> >> >> Isn't it obvious what needs to be done? Come on, it's no too hard to see... >> >> >> -- >> Bye, >> Gor Gyolchanyan. >> > > No, it should not be moved to druntime. druntime is the low-level abstraction layer over the compiler, nothing else. > > Further, all the write* functions perform GC allocation, which is unacceptable in druntime. > > -- > - Alex > -- Bye, Gor Gyolchanyan.

May 15, 2012

Re: arrays: if(null == [ ])

Posted by Alex Rønne Petersen
in reply to Gor Gyolchanyan

Permalink

Alex Rønne Petersen

Posted in reply to Gor Gyolchanyan

Permalink

On 15-05-2012 15:35, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
> Even if it's wrong to move writef to druntime, the toUTFz is still a
> very small word to write.
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen
> <xtzgzorex@gmail.com <mailto:xtzgzorex@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 15-05-2012 15:22, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>
>         On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen
>         <xtzgzorex@gmail.com <mailto:xtzgzorex@gmail.com>
>         <mailto:xtzgzorex@gmail.com <mailto:xtzgzorex@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>             Yes, because using a Phobos function in druntime is perfectly
>             possible! Totally!
>               --
>             - Alex
>
>
>         Isn't it obvious what needs to be done? Come on, it's no too
>         hard to see...
>
>
>         --
>         Bye,
>         Gor Gyolchanyan.
>
>
>     No, it should not be moved to druntime. druntime is the low-level
>     abstraction layer over the compiler, nothing else.
>
>     Further, all the write* functions perform GC allocation, which is
>     unacceptable in druntime.
>
>     --
>     - Alex
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bye,
> Gor Gyolchanyan.

It's a Phobos function.

-- 
- Alex

On 05/15/2012 12:09 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: > There's not reason to use printf! This is ridiculous! We haev a > type-safe writef, which does exactly that and does it better. > Besides, wrapping the literal into a toUTFz is not too difficult! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, no and no. toUTFz could be called at compile-time. Absolutely no extra run-time allocations, absolutely no run-time overhead. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com>wrote: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 17:35:58 Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: > > Even if it's wrong to move writef to druntime, the toUTFz is still a very small word to write. > > Using toStringz or toUTFz instead of having string literals be > zero-terminated > would force allocating extra strings (string literals are in an RO portion > of > memory - at least on Linux - so you can't append to them without > reallocating). > > Making it so that string literals weren't null terminated would break a > _lot_ > of code for little-to-no benefit and a definite cost. I really don't see > the > problem with "" being different from cast(string)[] - particularly when the > fact that "" is non-null is _useful_. > > - Jonathan M Davis > -- Bye, Gor Gyolchanyan.

Le 15/05/2012 15:29, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit : > On 15-05-2012 15:22, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen >> <xtzgzorex@gmail.com <mailto:xtzgzorex@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, because using a Phobos function in druntime is perfectly >> possible! Totally! >> -- >> - Alex >> >> >> Isn't it obvious what needs to be done? Come on, it's no too hard to >> see... >> >> >> -- >> Bye, >> Gor Gyolchanyan. > > No, it should not be moved to druntime. druntime is the low-level > abstraction layer over the compiler, nothing else. > > Further, all the write* functions perform GC allocation, which is > unacceptable in druntime. > I do agree that it does not belong to druntime. However : 1/ druntime already perfom GC aloc. 2/ druntime isn't supposed to printf anyway.

On 5/15/12, Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchanyan@gmail.com> wrote: > No, no and no. toUTFz could be called at compile-time. Absolutely no extra run-time allocations, absolutely no run-time overhead. How about programmer-time overhead? Are *you* volunteering to edit all the codebases out there that rely on having 0-terminated string literals?

Forums