digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9253] New: Review Phobos algorithms and make them transient-safe where possible
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 01 2013
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 01 2013
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 14 2013
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 14 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: -------
Jan 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: -------
Jan 01 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: -------
Jan 14 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: -------
Jan 14 2013









d-bugmail puremagic.com 