digitalmars.D - Unofficial wish list status.
- 12tkvvb02 sneakemail.com (85/85) Sep 30 2006 Hi
- John Reimer (5/90) Oct 02 2006 So we have array literals now. I guess non-static array initialization ...
- Frits van Bommel (18/20) Oct 02 2006 No, Walter seems to have forgotten to remove the check that produced the...
- Frits van Bommel (5/23) Oct 03 2006 And just over 2 hours later, DMD 0.168 came out and the bug is fixed.
- John Reimer (10/30) Oct 03 2006 =
- Serg Kovrov (4/6) Oct 03 2006 How about associative array literals?
-
Walter Bright
(2/7)
Oct 03 2006
Nobody's ever happy
. - Serg Kovrov (14/15) Oct 03 2006 No, I'm happy in general, although it may not seems so =)
- Tom S (2/4) Oct 03 2006 Sorry if you already know this, but there is std.gc.getStats
- Serg Kovrov (5/6) Oct 03 2006 No, I did not. Thank you Tom.
Hi This is the monthly status for the unofficial d wish list: http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/ Right now the wish list looks like this: 114 array initialization/literals 91 Reflection API 75 vectorization 73 Stack tracing 72 Faster GC 51 Short syntax for new 48 Improved Foreach 47 Multiple opCast per class 45 unit test after compilation 44 Multiple return values (tuples 44 readonly/const enforcement 42 extra compiler values 39 Native AMD64 codegen 36 Unit test isolation 36 Explicit out/inout 35 Stack allocated classes. 33 Posix threads support native 33 Array masking 33 Debug check for null reference 32 Auto new-ing of classes 31 !in 28 Explicit type initializers 28 Foreach on first/on last 26 Return-type overloading 24 unit test & code separation 24 black box unit testing 24 associative arrays by index 24 Weak references/pointers 23 unit test coverage 23 coherent assoc. array syntax 23 Pass value params byref 22 Renaming ctor/dtor 22 better syntax for cast 22 Consistent struct/class sizeof 22 auto-member objects 20 Unit test measurements 19 Array pushback/popback 18 proper cast operators 18 Header File generation by DMD 17 User-defined sync function 16 Templates in classes 16 Explicit module `friendship` 15 Non-Static isExpression 15 Experimental d compiler 13 Conditional syncronized 13 Eigenpoll fix 13 opIn 10 imag and comp FP types. 9 OS X Build 8 Built-in variant type 8 Iterators and Generators 8 D library contest 8 inout variable and return 8 Precise names for floats 8 Pascal casing for methods, mod 7 Call log 7 Pascal like sets 6 Against class instance sizeof 6 modules must not rely on files 5 Add native string type 5 Meta Information 5 Explicit property keyword 4 Improve module architecture 4 L-Value return 3 Relational class/array algebra 3 conv() and opConv 3 inline expansion 3 if, while, true, false, int 2 interface to C++ 2 Finite sets 2 Multistep return 2 struct literal/initialization 2 No Postfix Array Declarations 1 Manage .resources files 1 Declaration in function calls 1 Inline enum declaration 0 allow change self interface(?) 0 consistant new 0 Explicit 'property' keyword 0 Parallel Scavenging GC 0 opCast overloading
Sep 30 2006
So we have array literals now. I guess non-static array initialization is possible now that we have this? On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:47:34 -0700, <12tkvvb02 sneakemail.com> wrote:Hi This is the monthly status for the unofficial d wish list: http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/ Right now the wish list looks like this: 114 array initialization/literals 91 Reflection API 75 vectorization 73 Stack tracing 72 Faster GC 51 Short syntax for new 48 Improved Foreach 47 Multiple opCast per class 45 unit test after compilation 44 Multiple return values (tuples 44 readonly/const enforcement 42 extra compiler values 39 Native AMD64 codegen 36 Unit test isolation 36 Explicit out/inout 35 Stack allocated classes. 33 Posix threads support native 33 Array masking 33 Debug check for null reference 32 Auto new-ing of classes 31 !in 28 Explicit type initializers 28 Foreach on first/on last 26 Return-type overloading 24 unit test & code separation 24 black box unit testing 24 associative arrays by index 24 Weak references/pointers 23 unit test coverage 23 coherent assoc. array syntax 23 Pass value params byref 22 Renaming ctor/dtor 22 better syntax for cast 22 Consistent struct/class sizeof 22 auto-member objects 20 Unit test measurements 19 Array pushback/popback 18 proper cast operators 18 Header File generation by DMD 17 User-defined sync function 16 Templates in classes 16 Explicit module `friendship` 15 Non-Static isExpression 15 Experimental d compiler 13 Conditional syncronized 13 Eigenpoll fix 13 opIn 10 imag and comp FP types. 9 OS X Build 8 Built-in variant type 8 Iterators and Generators 8 D library contest 8 inout variable and return 8 Precise names for floats 8 Pascal casing for methods, mod 7 Call log 7 Pascal like sets 6 Against class instance sizeof 6 modules must not rely on files 5 Add native string type 5 Meta Information 5 Explicit property keyword 4 Improve module architecture 4 L-Value return 3 Relational class/array algebra 3 conv() and opConv 3 inline expansion 3 if, while, true, false, int 2 interface to C++ 2 Finite sets 2 Multistep return 2 struct literal/initialization 2 No Postfix Array Declarations 1 Manage .resources files 1 Declaration in function calls 1 Inline enum declaration 0 allow change self interface(?) 0 consistant new 0 Explicit 'property' keyword 0 Parallel Scavenging GC 0 opCast overloading-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Oct 02 2006
John Reimer wrote:So we have array literals now. I guess non-static array initialization is possible now that we have this?No, Walter seems to have forgotten to remove the check that produced the error message for non-static array initialization: D:\Temp> cat test.d void main() { int[] foo = [1, 2, 3]; } D:\Temp> dmd test.d test.d(3): variable test.main.foo is not a static and cannot have static initializer IIRC he has acknowledged this is a bug. So hopefully it'll be fixed in the next DMD version. Workaround until then: void main() { int[] foo; foo = [1, 2, 3]; }
Oct 02 2006
Frits van Bommel wrote:John Reimer wrote:And just over 2 hours later, DMD 0.168 came out and the bug is fixed. Guess I should have waited to reply ;). So now "array initialization/literals" have been implemented except for associative arrays (as Serg Kovrov mentioned).So we have array literals now. I guess non-static array initialization is possible now that we have this?No, Walter seems to have forgotten to remove the check that produced the error message for non-static array initialization: D:\Temp> cat test.d void main() { int[] foo = [1, 2, 3]; } D:\Temp> dmd test.d test.d(3): variable test.main.foo is not a static and cannot have static initializer IIRC he has acknowledged this is a bug. So hopefully it'll be fixed in the next DMD version.
Oct 03 2006
"John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:06:33 -0700, Frits van Bommel = <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> wrote:Frits van Bommel wrote:John Reimer wrote:So we have array literals now. I guess non-static array ==initialization is possible now that we have this?No, Walter seems to have forgotten to remove the check that produced==the error message for non-static array initialization: D:\Temp> cat test.d void main() { int[] foo =3D [1, 2, 3]; } D:\Temp> dmd test.d test.d(3): variable test.main.foo is not a static and cannot have=in =static initializer IIRC he has acknowledged this is a bug. So hopefully it'll be fixed ==the next DMD version.And just over 2 hours later, DMD 0.168 came out and the bug is fixed. =Guess I should have waited to reply ;). So now "array initialization/literals" have been implemented except fo=r =associative arrays (as Serg Kovrov mentioned).Yes, I noticed that too. I think it was just a coincidence. ;D Thanks, Walter. You've been doing a phenomenal job. -JJR
Oct 03 2006
Hi John Reimer, you wrote:So we have array literals now. I guess non-static array initialization is possible now that we have this?How about associative array literals? -- serg.
Oct 03 2006
Serg Kovrov wrote:Hi John Reimer, you wrote:Nobody's ever happy <g>.So we have array literals now. I guess non-static array initialization is possible now that we have this?How about associative array literals?
Oct 03 2006
Hi Walter Bright, you wrote:Nobody's ever happy <g>.No, I'm happy in general, although it may not seems so =) Im not complain that language is bad, just wish for it to be even better (at least for me). And again, big thank you Walter for your efforts. Really. I believe most of people here mostly happy with D =) Everyone have small issues. But small things matters, you know... For me AA literals would be useful, but its more aesthetic thing (although big one). What I really NEED is GC to return memory to OS... And a cool thing would be for GC to have an interface to provide some stats like current GC-allocated memory and GC-pool size, etc... Yeah =) -- serg.
Oct 03 2006
Serg Kovrov wrote:And a cool thing would be for GC to have an interface to provide some stats like current GC-allocated memory and GC-pool size, etc... Yeah =)Sorry if you already know this, but there is std.gc.getStats
Oct 03 2006
Hi Tom S, you wrote:Sorry if you already know this, but there is std.gc.getStatsNo, I did not. Thank you Tom. I can't find any docs for it. Seems I have to dig sources then... -- serg.
Oct 03 2006