• Weed (18/18) Dec 26 2008 In fact, the D is not contain a mechanism for compile-time
• Christopher Wright (21/28) Dec 27 2008 You want syntactic sugar for two things:
• Weed (4/37) Dec 28 2008 It not syntactic sugar. I suggest not to waste time at all performance
• Christopher Wright (2/5) Dec 28 2008 Sorry, syntactic sugar and some minor optimizations.
• Weed (6/12) Dec 28 2008 These of optimization are very important when the program contains many
• Christopher Wright (5/15) Dec 28 2008 If the object is mutable, you still need to get it into writable memory....

Weed <resume755 mail.ru> writes:

In fact, the D is not contain a mechanism for compile-time
initialization of objects. Maybe add?

For example, that would be very usable for any objects which have
mathematical primitives.

Example:

struct S
{
    float[10] array;

    this( float f )
    {
        array[0] = f;
    }
}

void main()
{
    S a = S(8); // ok
    static S b = S(8); // error
}

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Weed wrote:
 In fact, the D is not contain a mechanism for compile-time
 initialization of objects. Maybe add?
 void main()
 {
     S a = S(8); // ok
     static S b = S(8); // error
 }

You want syntactic sugar for two things:

// example 1
void foo ()
{
	static S s;
	static bool s_initialized = false;
	if (!s_initialized)
	{
		s_initialized = true;
		s = S(8);
	}
}

// example 2
// module/class level
S s;
static this ()
{
	s = S(8);
}


Neither of these need to happen at compile time.

Weed <resume755 mail.ru> writes:

Christopher Wright ÐÉÛÅÔ:
 Weed wrote:
 In fact, the D is not contain a mechanism for compile-time
 initialization of objects. Maybe add?
 void main()
 {
     S a = S(8); // ok
     static S b = S(8); // error
 }

 
 You want syntactic sugar for two things:
 
 // example 1
 void foo ()
 {
     static S s;
     static bool s_initialized = false;
     if (!s_initialized)
     {
         s_initialized = true;
         s = S(8);
     }
 }
 
 // example 2
 // module/class level
 S s;
 static this ()
 {
     s = S(8);
 }
 
 
 Neither of these need to happen at compile time.

It not syntactic sugar. I suggest not to waste time at all performance
on run-time initialization of objects and check of side conditions on a
course of performance of the program.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Weed wrote:
 It not syntactic sugar. I suggest not to waste time at all performance
 on run-time initialization of objects and check of side conditions on a
 course of performance of the program.

Sorry, syntactic sugar and some minor optimizations.

Weed <resume755 mail.ru> writes:

Christopher Wright ÐÉÛÅÔ:
 Weed wrote:
 It not syntactic sugar. I suggest not to waste time at all performance
 on run-time initialization of objects and check of side conditions on a
 course of performance of the program.

 
 Sorry, syntactic sugar and some minor optimizations.


These of optimization are very important when the program contains many
objects for mathematics.

In adjacent thread wish to take out complex numbers in library, for
example. Those who used static initialization of complex types can want
to use it and with new library.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Weed wrote:
 Christopher Wright ÐÉÛÅÔ:
 Weed wrote:
 It not syntactic sugar. I suggest not to waste time at all performance
 on run-time initialization of objects and check of side conditions on a
 course of performance of the program.

 Sorry, syntactic sugar and some minor optimizations.

 
 
 These of optimization are very important when the program contains many
 objects for mathematics.

If the object is mutable, you still need to get it into writable memory. 
If the computation is cheap enough that it's reasonable to do at compile 
time, copying will be a major cost. Therefore this optimization is not 
very important.