On 03/24/2010 12:57 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu"<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message
news:hod5o3$1nh...@digitalmars.com...
On 03/24/2010 08:28 AM, bearophile wrote:
As
they say: "Those who cannot learn from C# are doomed to re-invent it,
often badly."
Who are "they"?
He was modifying the common expression "Those who don't learn from the past
are doomed to repeat it."
But paraphrasing ain't "as they say" because they don't say that.
Besides, I thought he's paraphrasing "Any sufficiently complicated C or
Fortran program contains a buggy implementation of Common Lisp." But I
guess that's just me being cranky - I'm sick.
(In D you can solve this problem creating a flags struct, using a
strategy similar to the one used by std.bitmanip.bitfields, but it
feels hackish).
Why does a mechanism that allows creating bitfields, custom enums, flags,
custom-base literals, and more, feel hackish,
Because it involves passing everything as parameters to a
string-mixin-generating function/template. Powerful as such as thing is, and
as much as I like having that ability available, it is a rather blunt
instrument and does tend to feel very hackish.
Feeling is subjective. To me it doesn't.
Also, looking at the docs for bitmanip, it looks like "bitfields" creates a
"BitArray". But the interface for bitarray doesn't really seem to match the
conceptual-level operations performed on bitfields any more than just using
an ordinary uint would, and it doesn't seem to solve most of the problems
with doing so, either.
Nonsense. bitfields does not create a BitArray and does exactly what
you'd expect some bit fields to do. To saliently criticize an artifact,
it does help to understand it.
whereas dumping a wheelbarrow of narrow-usefulness features with every
release
Custom bitfields are extremely useful for low-level code. Being a
self-proclaimed "systems" language, there's no reason D should consider such
a thing to be of "narrow-usefulness".
First, custom bitfields are taken care of appropriately by bitfield. You
may want to try it before replying. Second, this thread is about enums
that are bitwise flags, so I take it you replied to disagree with every
paragraph I wrote.
while still failing to address major problems (concurrency, immutability)
feels not?
I don't think anyone's suggesting that things like concurrency and
immutability should fail to be addressed.
Then stop extolling the virtues of an obscure feature.
Andrei
