On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:53:46 +0300, BCS wrote:
If I didn't write the DLL I'm calling, I'll assume it doesn't check
stuff. If I didn't write the code calling my DLL, I'll assume it doesn't
check stuff. Why should I assume that the documentation is right or that
people will even read my docu
Adam Ruppe wrote:
On 6/21/10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Then why are people using switch and next to nobody uses fall through
(provably including Walter, who thinks is using fall through "all the
time")?
Do you have some stats from the phobos and dmd source? I ran a crude
text pattern progra
On 6/22/10, Don wrote:
> Did you consider situations where the last thing before the case is
> actually a 'goto' ? Walter does that a lot.
Yeah, me too. I counted them the same as break (and continue, return,
and throw).
Here's my source. I know it has some false negatives and some false
positiv
BCS wrote:
> Hello Jonathan,
>
>> "goto case" does seem a bit silly, but I think that it's clearer and
>> less error prone for anyone who understands "goto case."
>
> Say I have some code with a fall through. If I use the goto case X;
> version, it allows the cases to be freely reordered. OTOH i
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 06/21/2010 05:11 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Having something like "fallthrough" or "goto next case" would of
course be even clearer, but those would require new keywords.
I think "fallthrough" would be a perfect keyword to add here. C
programmers will immediately r
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:55:48 -0400, BCS wrote:
Hello Leandro,
Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste:
"Eldar Insafutdinov" wrote in message
news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com...
In the end, Windows is the most popular
OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:22:40 -0400, Masahiro Nakagawa
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:08:07 +0900, Robert Jacques
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:02:28 -0400, Masahiro Nakagawa
wrote:
mp_Object is based on std.json.JSONValue.
Variant can't have mp_pack method.
Hmm..., I check Variant agai
Hello Robert,
On 21/06/10 16:07, dsimcha wrote:
What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed
the
first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today
(excitement to
the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive
license (which
I understand Wal
On 6/21/10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Then why are people using switch and next to nobody uses fall through
> (provably including Walter, who thinks is using fall through "all the
> time")?
Do you have some stats from the phobos and dmd source? I ran a crude
text pattern program, and it said a
Hello Leandro,
Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste:
"Eldar Insafutdinov" wrote in message
news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com...
In the end, Windows is the most popular
OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some
time for
it.
I wish someone could
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Bill Baxter, el 21 de junio a las 17:13 me escribiste:
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leandro Lucarella
>> wrote:
>> > goto next case; is a little more verbose but very clear to me :)
>> >
>> > Maybe just next case; is a shorter al
Hello Jonathan,
"goto case" does seem a bit silly, but I think that it's clearer and
less error prone for anyone who understands "goto case."
Say I have some code with a fall through. If I use the goto case X; version,
it allows the cases to be freely reordered. OTOH if I use the other option
On 06/21/2010 10:01 PM, BCS wrote:
On page 6 it say: "the code sample above also introduced the if
statement" but none of them do.
Could you please add that to the errata?
http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata
Andrei
On 06/21/2010 08:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On page 82 of TDPL, it's talking about try/catch/finally statements, and it
says that "all controlled statement must be block statements; that is they
must be enclosed with braces." However, dmd does not seem to require that
try/catch/finally blocks
On 6/21/2010 8:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> I optimized things such that the commonly used path (many calls to
> empty, front, and popFront) is as fast as possible. The initial work
> will be amortized for most loops.
>
> On my machine, test4 is still 2x slower than foreach_reverse in an
On 06/21/2010 08:28 PM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
That's not too difficult; for integers, retro(iota(a, b)) could actually be a
rewrite to iota(b - 1, a, -1).<
This is good. In my dlibs the xchain converts xchain(xchain(x, y), z) and
similar into xchain(x, y, z).
Figuring ou
On page 6 it say: "the code sample above also introduced the if statement"
but none of them do.
--
... <
Hello Tomek,
I think the delegate ought to be pure to make the magic happen.
That would be a god idea if the feature were strictly for lazy (no cost unless
you need it) evaluation but there are other use that need to be able to cause
side effects.
--
... <
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:24:42 -0400, Masahiro Nakagawa
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 04:27:08 +0900, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Serialization from base class was one of my goals when I implemented
Orange.
Good.
But you need to register a function for that, until D2 fixes the
"getMembers" meth
On 21.06.2010 20:51, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I've been trying to get a modified version of std.process to compile (with
Lars K's changes) for windows, and phobos finally compiled.
So I built a little test program, compiled it, and I get the following
error message:
object.Exception: circula
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 04:27:08 +0900, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Serialization from base class was one of my goals when I implemented
Orange.
Good.
But you need to register a function for that, until D2 fixes the
"getMembers" method in TypeInfo_Class.
You reported this bug? I couldn't find clo
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:51:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
I've been trying to get a modified version of std.process to compile
(with Lars K's changes) for windows, and phobos finally compiled.
So I built a little test program, compiled it, and I get the following
error message:
o
Hello Vladimir,
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:42:34 +0300, BCS wrote:
Why will you assume I'm so dumb that I won't use your interface
correctly?
First because some people are. And second, because it trivially easy
to respond to support calls that start with "Your DLL is throwing a
YouAreNotUsingT
Bill Baxter, el 21 de junio a las 17:13 me escribiste:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > goto next case; is a little more verbose but very clear to me :)
> >
> > Maybe just next case; is a shorter alternative...
>
> That would be great if "next" were a D keyword. Bu
Jonathan M Davis, el 21 de junio a las 17:03 me escribiste:
> bearophile wrote:
>
> > Andrei Alexandrescu:
> >> The problem is, if Walter sees us bickering too much, he'll use that as
> >> pretext to veto out any improvement.
> >
> > You are wrong, Walter is an adult able to understand discussion
Adam Ruppe, el 21 de junio a las 20:40 me escribiste:
> What's the point of a switch without implicit fallthrough? If you take
> that away, it offers nothing that if/elseif doesn't. (Aside from not
> retyping the switch(stuff here), which you can bring into a function
> anyway, so whoop-de-doo. And
On page 82 of TDPL, it's talking about try/catch/finally statements, and it
says that "all controlled statement must be block statements; that is they
must be enclosed with braces." However, dmd does not seem to require that
try/catch/finally blocks have braces, which is what I would expect that
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:42:34 +0300, BCS wrote:
Why will you assume I'm so dumb that I won't use your interface
correctly?
First because some people are. And second, because it trivially easy to
respond to support calls that start with "Your DLL is throwing a
YouAreNotUsingThisDLLCorrectl
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:15:12 +0300, Adrian Matoga wrote:
It was 15 years ago, at the times of 3.x and 95, when Windows behaved
like that.
More like 10, Windows Millennium was the last 9x-based Windows operating
system without strong process isolation.
The problem applies not only to Win
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:30:48 +0300, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 21 de junio a las 08:02 me escribiste:
On 06/20/2010 11:08 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>Walter Bright, el 20 de junio a las 19:32 me escribiste:
>>Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>>Why will you assume I'm so dumb
Andrei Alexandrescu:
>That's not too difficult; for integers, retro(iota(a, b)) could actually be a
>rewrite to iota(b - 1, a, -1).<
This is good. In my dlibs the xchain converts xchain(xchain(x, y), z) and
similar into xchain(x, y, z).
>Figuring out all corner cases, steps greater than 1, an
On 06/21/2010 07:40 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote:
What's the point of a switch without implicit fallthrough? If you take
that away, it offers nothing that if/elseif doesn't. (Aside from not
retyping the switch(stuff here), which you can bring into a function
anyway, so whoop-de-doo. And I guess some perf
What's the point of a switch without implicit fallthrough? If you take
that away, it offers nothing that if/elseif doesn't. (Aside from not
retyping the switch(stuff here), which you can bring into a function
anyway, so whoop-de-doo. And I guess some performance boosts in
rearranging the cases, but
On 06/21/2010 06:35 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 21 de junio a las 17:43 me escribiste:
If efficiency is still sub-par, retro could detect that it's working
with iota and generate specialized code. That's not too difficult;
for integers, retro(iota(a, b)) could actually b
There is not currently an explicit operator precedence table in the online
docs. While C/C++ is close enough that you can generally look at a C/C++
operator precedence table and figure it out if you need to, there are
definitely folks who would like a D precedence table to look at (the
question
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> goto next case; is a little more verbose but very clear to me :)
>
> Maybe just next case; is a shorter alternative...
That would be great if "next" were a D keyword. But I don't think
you're going to get Walter to add a keyword just fo
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 21 de junio a las 15:31 me escribiste:
> On 06/21/2010 03:08 PM, Don wrote:
> >Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>On 06/19/2010 06:58 AM, Don wrote:
> >>>Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Don wrote:
> [snip]
> >Or is too late to break backwards compatibility with B ?
> >>
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 21 de junio a las 17:43 me escribiste:
> If efficiency is still sub-par, retro could detect that it's working
> with iota and generate specialized code. That's not too difficult;
> for integers, retro(iota(a, b)) could actually be a rewrite to
> iota(b - 1, a, -1). Figuring
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 21 de junio a las 15:25 me escribiste:
> On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> >Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> >>
> >>In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a control
> >>statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a specific
> >>d
On 06/21/2010 06:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[snip]
Andrei
Well, "goto case" and "goto case XXX" both already exist. Both get the job
done. So, regardless of which would be better for fallthrough, we can choose
to use whichever we want in our code. As it stands
bearophile wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> The problem is, if Walter sees us bickering too much, he'll use that as
>> pretext to veto out any improvement.
>
> You are wrong, Walter is an adult able to understand discussions, not a
> capricious dictator :-) Syntax and other things require discuss
Did anyone suggest "continue case" instead of "continue switch"? That
sounds less ambiguous to me.
--bb
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Well, "goto case" and "goto case XXX" both already exist. Both get the job
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> The problem is, if Walter sees us bickering too much, he'll use that as
> pretext to veto out any improvement.
You are wrong, Walter is an adult able to understand discussions, not a
capricious dictator :-)
Syntax and other things require discussions, sometimes even longis
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[snip]
>
>
> Andrei
Well, "goto case" and "goto case XXX" both already exist. Both get the job
done. So, regardless of which would be better for fallthrough, we can choose
to use whichever we want in our code. As it stands, it becomes a matter of
preference. I'd lo
On 06/21/2010 05:11 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Having something like "fallthrough" or "goto next case" would of
course be even clearer, but those would require new keywords.
I think "fallthrough" would be a perfect keyword to add here. C
programmers will immediately recognize it. Switch/case
On 06/21/2010 06:30 PM, torhu wrote:
On 22.06.2010 00:39, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I started an errata list in form of a community wiki at
http://www.erdani.com/tdpl/errata
For those of us who have still only got the pdf version, is that the
same text as the printed one? Should we report er
On 06/21/2010 06:01 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
After Sean's example, goto case XXX is my fave for fallthrough. I don't
like unlabeled "goto case" to mean fall through, it's one of those "need
to look in the manual" features. goto case XXX is generalized fall
through.
On 22.06.2010 00:39, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I started an errata list in form of a community wiki at
http://www.erdani.com/tdpl/errata
For those of us who have still only got the pdf version, is that the
same text as the printed one? Should we report errors in the pdf
version, or wait un
I got my collectors edition from Amazon US a few days ago.
I browsed it a bit and it looks like an interesting read even for
someone who basically knows D already. Which is good, because anyone
who knows C or Java basically does already know most of D. I liked
that about Stroustrup's book on C++,
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 02:09 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Okay. I am in no way trying to say anything negative about TDPL.
> [snip]
>
> You are being too kind about this :o).
Well, I didn't want to post on the main D list and come across as saying
that the new book is full
Alix Pexton pisze:
On 21/06/2010 20:23, Mike James wrote:
Got my "collectors item" delivered today from Amazon UK. Looks good.
I like
the bonus of being able to download a PDF version of TDPL.
Where to find this PDF version? I can only see the contents, excerpt
from first chapter, and the i
Got mine today from Amazon Canada: collector's edition too. I'll start
reading it soon!
Guillaume
Mike James wrote:
> Got my "collectors item" delivered today from Amazon UK. Looks good. I
> like the bonus of being able to download a PDF version of TDPL.
>
> Thanks for all the hard work An
On 06/21/2010 01:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I've been trying to get a modified version of std.process to compile
(with Lars K's changes) for windows, and phobos finally compiled.
So I built a little test program, compiled it, and I get the following
error message:
object.Exception: circ
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> After Sean's example, goto case XXX is my fave for fallthrough. I don't
> like unlabeled "goto case" to mean fall through, it's one of those "need
> to look in the manual" features. goto case XXX is generalized fall
> through.
>
> Andrei
Well, it definitely works,
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/21/2010 05:35 PM, Spacen Jasset wrote:
I am only on page ten, I believe I saw a minor typo somewhere in the
preface, that's all so far. I look forward to pondering the rest in the
coming days.
oh yes.
Preface
"D is a language that attempts to consistently do th
On 06/21/2010 05:35 PM, Spacen Jasset wrote:
I am only on page ten, I believe I saw a minor typo somewhere in the
preface, that's all so far. I look forward to pondering the rest in the
coming days.
oh yes.
Preface
"D is a language that attempts to consistently do the right thing within
the con
On 06/21/2010 04:15 PM, Don wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Sean Kelly wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a
control
statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a
specific
destination for fallthrough - though I'd pref
On 06/21/2010 04:06 PM, bearophile wrote:
Adam Ruppe:
foreach(i; retro(iota(0, 10))) { }
Oh, right! Or even just:
foreach (i; retro(iota(10))) {}
But abstraction has a cost, see below. I have written three test programs.
Nice work.
iota() currently uses the formula initial + i * step to c
On 06/21/2010 03:32 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
I was biting my tongue on the subject, but on page 73 the grammar for
the do while loop has a semicolon at the end. AAH
THERE IS NOOO SEMICOLON AT THE END.
Wow. Sorry. This is a pet peeve of mine.
Can't help that, sorry...
mwarning wrote:
> Anyway, the D spec says:
> "Static arrays are value types, but as in C static arrays are passed to
> functions by reference and cannot be returned from functions."
> (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/arrays.html#static-arrays)
I've been thinking D2. :) In D2, fixed-sized arrays
On 06/21/2010 02:57 PM, Alix Pexton wrote:
There is only one mention of lazy evaluation in the index and it doesn't
mention the lazy k/w at all. I seem to remember Andrei dislikes it, but
also that there is another way to get function params to be evaluated
lazily without using it.
lazy is quit
On 06/21/2010 02:09 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay. I am in no way trying to say anything negative about TDPL.
[snip]
You are being too kind about this :o). Of course we need an errata list.
I was hoping I'd need to set it up later, but hey, that's a sign people
actually are reading the boo
I am only on page ten, I believe I saw a minor typo somewhere in the
preface, that's all so far. I look forward to pondering the rest in the
coming days.
oh yes.
Preface
"D is a language that attempts to consistently do the right thing within
the constraints it choose: sys" etc
missing
On 21/06/2010 21:20, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Are your diagrams solely concerned with the lexer? Because I have a
(messy) parser grammar which I'm a bit more confident about if you're
interested.
So far I have only covered the lexer, but most of it needs redoing in
light of the errors in the DM
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:00:27 +0200, torhu wrote:
> On 21.06.2010 23:30, mwarning wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I try to pass a static array to a variadic C function. Looks like the
>> array is passed by values as expected, but the length and pointer are
>> prepended, too. Is this intentional or a bug?
>>
>>
On 21.06.2010 23:30, mwarning wrote:
Hi,
I try to pass a static array to a variadic C function.
Looks like the array is passed by values as expected,
but the length and pointer are prepended, too.
Is this intentional or a bug?
http://pastebin.com/6ejFF37j
I believe this works as intended. An
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:38:50 -0700, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> mwarning wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I try to pass a static array to a variadic C function. Looks like the
>> array is passed by values as expected, but the length and pointer are
>> prepended, too. Is this intentional or a bug?
>>
>> http://paste
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> >
> > It's a small thing, but I think "continue switch" could be misleading.
> > Consider this:
> >
> > switch (getState()) {
> > case X:
> > setState(Z);
> > continue switch;
> > case Y:
> > break;
> > case Z:
> > writeln( "done!" )
In windows if you want use some lib that is not provide dynamic dll support,
you need compile it with dmc. In this case your need deal a lot problem with
lack of c head file . if there is a vc++ version backend will be big help
for a lot of people who is not familiarity with c/c++ .
2010/6/22 El
mwarning wrote:
Hi,
I try to pass a static array to a variadic C function.
Looks like the array is passed by values as expected,
but the length and pointer are prepended, too.
Is this intentional or a bug?
http://pastebin.com/6ejFF37j
Fixed sized arrays don't have ptr and length members:
imp
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> >>
> >> In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a control
> >> statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a specific
> >> destination for fallthrough - th
Hi,
I try to pass a static array to a variadic C function.
Looks like the array is passed by values as expected,
but the length and pointer are prepended, too.
Is this intentional or a bug?
http://pastebin.com/6ejFF37j
Don wrote:
>
> But 'goto case XXX' is an extremely rarely encountered construct, that
> screams 'Examine this code closely'. So I don't think it needs extra
> error checking.
Oh, I don't think that it's a big issue. We have "goto case XXX" and "goto
case," so we could use them to enforce flow co
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Sean Kelly wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a control
statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a specific
destination for fallthrough - though I'd prefer "continue switch" over
"goto case
On 06/21/2010 03:46 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a
control
statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a
specific
destinatio
Sean Kelly wrote:
Rory McGuire Wrote:
I think perhaps you mis-understood, it is mostly not stupidity that causes
people to use
undocumented "features" of an API but rather, it is people being overly
"clever".
Or sometimes simply desperation. There are some classes of apps that require
the
Sean Kelly wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
>>
>> In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a control
>> statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a specific
>> destination for fallthrough - though I'd prefer "continue switch" over
>> "goto case" since it
Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste:
> "Eldar Insafutdinov" wrote in message
> news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com...
> >
> > In the end, Windows is the most popular
> > OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for
> > it.
> >
>
> I wish someon
On 06/21/2010 03:46 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a
control
statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a
specific
destinatio
Adam Ruppe:
> foreach(i; retro(iota(0, 10))) { }
Oh, right! Or even just:
foreach (i; retro(iota(10))) {}
But abstraction has a cost, see below. I have written three test programs.
// test1
import std.c.stdio: printf;
void main() {
enum int N = 100_000_000;
int count;
Dnia 21-06-2010 o 21:57:49 Alix Pexton
napisał(a):
There is only one mention of lazy evaluation in the index and it doesn't
mention the lazy k/w at all. I seem to remember Andrei dislikes it, but
also that there is another way to get function params to be evaluated
lazily without using i
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
>>>
>>> In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a
> > > control
>>> statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a
> > > specific
>>> destination for fallthro
Don:
> I patched my DMD. Quite successful. It caught 8 bugs in Phobos, in code
> written by at least 4 different people. I think everyone gets stung by
> that B.
Thank you Don.
Bye,
bearophile
I was biting my tongue on the subject, but on page 73 the grammar for
the do while loop has a semicolon at the end. AAH
THERE IS NOOO SEMICOLON AT THE END.
Wow. Sorry. This is a pet peeve of mine.
On 06/21/2010 03:08 PM, Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/19/2010 06:58 AM, Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
[snip]
Or is too late to break backwards compatibility with B ?
We can and should do it. It won't impact TDPL adversely.
Excellent! I'll make a patch for
On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a control
statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a specific
destination for fallthrough - though I'd prefer "continue switch" over "goto
case"
On 06/21/2010 02:21 PM, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 20/06/2010 22:46, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 20/06/2010 21:37, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/20/2010 03:01 PM, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 19/06/2010 21:12, Alix Pexton wrote:
I've been sketching some grammar diagrams for D2.0, a little like
those
on JSON.org
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/19/2010 06:58 AM, Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
[snip]
Or is too late to break backwards compatibility with B ?
We can and should do it. It won't impact TDPL adversely.
Excellent! I'll make a patch for it when I have time.
Walter just g
On 6/21/10, bearophile wrote:
> How do you write this?
> foreach_reverse (i; 0 .. 10)
foreach(i; retro(iota(0, 10))) { }
?
I wondered that too - looking at the footer thats added to the PDF file it
doesn't mention that it timeouts after 45 days.
I guess only Andrei can tell us for sure ;-)
-=mike=-
"Alix Pexton" wrote in message
news:hvoep9$2ld...@digitalmars.com...
> On 21/06/2010 20:23, Mike James wrote:
>> Go
On 21/06/2010 20:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay. I am in no way trying to say anything negative about TDPL. In fact,
from what I've read so far, it's absolutely fantastic and quite possibly the
most entertaining programming book that I've read in addition to being quite
informative about D. How
Jonathan M Davis:
An online Errata Corrige will be very useful.
> and I believe that foreach_reverse has been deprecated in favor of
> using the combination of foreach and retro.
How do you write this?
foreach_reverse (i; 0 .. 10)
Bye,
bearophile
On 21/06/2010 20:23, Mike James wrote:
Got my "collectors item" delivered today from Amazon UK. Looks good. I like
the bonus of being able to download a PDF version of TDPL.
Thanks for all the hard work Andrei.
-=mike=-
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:hu3hq6$2f0...@digitalmars.co
On 20/06/2010 22:46, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 20/06/2010 21:37, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/20/2010 03:01 PM, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 19/06/2010 21:12, Alix Pexton wrote:
I've been sketching some grammar diagrams for D2.0, a little like those
on JSON.org, and of course I didn't get far before I ra
Got my "collectors item" delivered today from Amazon UK. Looks good. I like
the bonus of being able to download a PDF version of TDPL.
Thanks for all the hard work Andrei.
-=mike=-
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:hu3hq6$2f0...@digitalmars.com...
> Due to a pretty odd mistake at t
Okay. I am in no way trying to say anything negative about TDPL. In fact,
from what I've read so far, it's absolutely fantastic and quite possibly the
most entertaining programming book that I've read in addition to being quite
informative about D. However, no one's perfect (Andrei included), an
I've been trying to get a modified version of std.process to compile (with
Lars K's changes) for windows, and phobos finally compiled.
So I built a little test program, compiled it, and I get the following
error message:
object.Exception: circular dependency in module std.stdio.
Great. Ho
Sean Kelly:
> Having never encountered D before, what would be your interpretation of this
> code?
Unfortunately the "continue case;" syntax looks about equally unintuitive to me
:-(
Bye,
bearophile
Sean Kelly:
>First, what if a library eats its own dogfood? If my library provides a
>public method to spawn threads and the library itself uses threads internally
>then I have two different methods of checking the integrity of my own library,
>each possibly throwing different exceptions (enfo
On 21/06/10 16:07, dsimcha wrote:
What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed the
first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement to
the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive license (which
I understand Walter is not free t
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
