On 03/24/2010 02:34 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu"<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message
news:hodla0$2st...@digitalmars.com...
On 03/24/2010 12:57 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu"<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message
news:hod5o3$1nh...@digitalmars.com...
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.
Ok, I'm not going to get baited into picking apart minute details of
someone's exact choice of wording.
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.
And so what, that proves it isn't hackish? Point is, there are people who do
find it hackish, and saying "I don't" hardly addresses the issue.
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.
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.
"it does help to understand it"<- Which is why I went and double-checked
the docs. The docs didn't say anything about what "bitfields" actually
created, but it did have a big definition of the "BitArray" type right
there, and no other types were mentioned besides FloatRep and DoubleRep
(which were clearly mere uses of "bitfields"), so I assumed. Clearly I
assumed wrong, big fucking deal. That's no reason to get all pissy about it.
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.
Wow, cranky indeed.
Apology accepted :oD.
Andrei
