www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Why is ^^= not part of type definition of integers?

reply 12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:
Currently it relies on a function call of phobos math function 
instead of code generation for backend optimization. If that were 
the case, why does it not rewrite it as `this g() = 
std.math.pow(g(),2)` for functions?


This is a road block for me when implementing binary operators 
for properties.


-Alex
May 04 2021
parent reply Max Haughton <maxhaton gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:20:53 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

 Currently it relies on a function call of phobos math function 
 instead of code generation for backend optimization. If that 
 were the case, why does it not rewrite it as `this g() = 
 std.math.pow(g(),2)` for functions?


 This is a road block for me when implementing binary operators 
 for properties.


 -Alex


pow can be inlined, there is no optimization problem here.

As for why the rewriting doesn't happen in general I assume it's 
because there wasn't demand for it.

Why is this a roadblock, can't you just lower to the form similar 
to the one you suggest?
May 04 2021
parent reply 12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:27:13 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:20:53 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

 Currently it relies on a function call of phobos math function 
 instead of code generation for backend optimization. If that 
 were the case, why does it not rewrite it as `this g() = 
 std.math.pow(g(),2)` for functions?


 This is a road block for me when implementing binary operators 
 for properties.


 -Alex


 pow can be inlined, there is no optimization problem here.

 As for why the rewriting doesn't happen in general I assume 
 it's because there wasn't demand for it.

 Why is this a roadblock, can't you just lower to the form 
 similar to the one you suggest?


The rewrite currently only works if you mark your get and set 
functions as property. I am not sure if the rewrite should be 
allowed for functions that are not mark property when it comes to 
^^= operator for integers.

-Alex
May 04 2021
parent reply Max Haughton <maxhaton gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:57:33 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:27:13 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:20:53 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

 [...]


 pow can be inlined, there is no optimization problem here.

 As for why the rewriting doesn't happen in general I assume 
 it's because there wasn't demand for it.

 Why is this a roadblock, can't you just lower to the form 
 similar to the one you suggest?


 The rewrite currently only works if you mark your get and set 
 functions as property. I am not sure if the rewrite should be 
 allowed for functions that are not mark property when it comes 
 to ^^= operator for integers.

 -Alex


You've lost me.
May 04 2021
parent reply 12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 16:08:28 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:57:33 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:27:13 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:20:53 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

 [...]


 pow can be inlined, there is no optimization problem here.

 As for why the rewriting doesn't happen in general I assume 
 it's because there wasn't demand for it.

 Why is this a roadblock, can't you just lower to the form 
 similar to the one you suggest?


 The rewrite currently only works if you mark your get and set 
 functions as property. I am not sure if the rewrite should be 
 allowed for functions that are not mark property when it comes 
 to ^^= operator for integers.

 -Alex


 You've lost me.


Should g ^^= 2 be allowed for non- property functions? Where g() 
is a function call where function definitions void g(int value) 
and int g() exist.

-Alex

-Alex
May 04 2021
parent Max Haughton <maxhaton gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 16:49:00 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 16:08:28 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:57:33 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:27:13 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:

 [...]


 The rewrite currently only works if you mark your get and set 
 functions as property. I am not sure if the rewrite should be 
 allowed for functions that are not mark property when it 
 comes to ^^= operator for integers.

 -Alex


 You've lost me.


 Should g ^^= 2 be allowed for non- property functions? Where 
 g() is a function call where function definitions void g(int 
 value) and int g() exist.

 -Alex

 -Alex


 property exists, so I think no.
May 04 2021