On 26 January 2012 03:15, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:05:43 -0800, Manu wrote:
>
> On 26 January 2012 00:55, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:44:09 -0800, Manu wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26 January 2012 00:37, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>>
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:2
YES, I'm not the only person alive using a trackball! Thumb-ball,
marble, or one of those giant pool-ball things?
you both are not alone. i'm also a trackball user for 11 years now. atm
i have a logitech trackman on my desk but owned one of those billiard
balls in the past, too.
You can use anonymous enums. The members will then live in the
global scope. You can then use just one alias to an int, uint
or what's appropriate.
Yeah but you loose type safety.
On 2012-01-26 01:12:40 +, Jonathan M Davis said:
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 02:06:45 Trass3r wrote:
When writing C bindings I usually create lots of aliases via a
string mixin to pull enum members into the enclosing scope so
it's compatible to C.
Would it be wise to let the compiler do
On 2012-01-26 11:51:10 +, "Trass3r" said:
You can use anonymous enums. The members will then live in the global
scope. You can then use just one alias to an int, uint or what's
appropriate.
Yeah but you loose type safety.
Or if you absolutely need both type safety and the values to liv
Often C enum value naming takes into account that they'll live
in the outer scope. For instance:
enum UITableViewRowAnimation {
UITableViewRowAnimationFade,
UITableViewRowAnimationRight,
UITableViewRowAnimationLeft,
UITableViewRowAnimationTop,
Are the Clang C bindings complete? I imagine they don't get
that much attention.
It depends on what complete means. If you mean that you can do
all the things you can do with the C++ API, then no. If you
mean it's complete enough to implement this project, then I
don't know. I think at least
Or if you absolutely need both type safety and the values to
live in the outer scope, you can do this:
enum Something
{
SomethingPointy,
SomethingSmooth,
}
alias Something.SomethingPointy SomethingPointy;
alias Something.Som
I agree, enum variable should only contain one of the
enumerated values. Here's an example how current way may lead
to unexpected result:
enum Foo { A = 1, B }
void bar( Foo foo ) {
final switch( foo ) {
case Foo.A:
writeln( "A" );
return;
case Foo.B:
"Andrew Wiley" wrote in message
news:mailman.40.1327562674.25230.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
>> news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>>>
>>> I must rave about the trackpad on the ma
On 2012-01-26 13:24, Trass3r wrote:
Are the Clang C bindings complete? I imagine they don't get that much
attention.
It depends on what complete means. If you mean that you can do all the
things you can do with the C++ API, then no. If you mean it's complete
enough to implement this project, th
On 2012-01-26 12:51, Trass3r wrote:
You can use anonymous enums. The members will then live in the global
scope. You can then use just one alias to an int, uint or what's
appropriate.
Yeah but you loose type safety.
It's not type safe in C. But you can wrap it in a struct with alias this
ins
Trass3r:
> As I said one could introduce something like @flags but I guess a
> library solution is preferred.
> I still wonder though if implicit conversion to the basetype has
> any merit.
Those are important topics. D must offer a solution that is both safer and more
handy than the current o
It's not type safe in C. But you can wrap it in a struct with
alias this instead.
Yep, but in D we have strong enums, so why not use them.
On 1/26/2012 8:55 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2012-01-26 01:12:40 +, Jonathan M Davis said:
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 02:06:45 Trass3r wrote:
When writing C bindings I usually create lots of aliases via a
string mixin to pull enum members into the enclosing scope so
it's compatible to
On 2012-01-26 14:23, Trass3r wrote:
It's not type safe in C. But you can wrap it in a struct with alias
this instead.
Yep, but in D we have strong enums, so why not use them.
What about be able to do something like this:
enum Foo
{
public:
bar,
fooBar,
}
Foo f = bar;
--
/Jacob Carl
On 1/26/2012 10:23 PM, Trass3r wrote:
It's not type safe in C. But you can wrap it in a struct with alias
this instead.
Yep, but in D we have strong enums, so why not use them.
If your binding is for yourself, that's not a big deal. But if you're
putting it out there for public consumption,
I thought it'd be good to outsource this question from the other
thread about enums as flags.
Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype?
Imo it only introduces a severe bug source and brings no
advantages.
For example it allows implicit conversion to bool.
enum Bla
{
What version do you use?
In 2.058head(commit f8887855), `dmd -H -c test.d` succeeds to compile
without DMD assertion.
Kenji Hara
2012/1/23 Adam Wilson :
> Does anyone have any idea why DMD would assert with the following assert on
> this code while building the druntime during DI generation?
>
>
Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts :
On 1/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The level of support for the Windows API in druntime and Phobos is
pretty low.
As I understand it, Windows users are pretty much forced to use
http://www.dsource.org/projects/bindings/browser/trunk/
On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts :
>
> On 1/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>
>>> The level of support for the Windows API in druntime and Phobos is
>>> pretty low.
>>> As I understand it, Windows users are pretty much forced
On 26 January 2012 16:45, Manu wrote:
> On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise wrote:
>
>> Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts :
>>
>> On 1/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>
The level of support for the Windows API in druntime and Phobos is
pretty low.
As I u
Trass3r wrote:
> but by using named enums I made clear that Bla and Blub are
> totally different
No. Obviously you decjlared both to be implicitely convertable to a
common super type: int. To change this, both supertypes have be
changed.
The impßlementation is unfortenatey broken:
void main(
On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 14:45:02 UTC, Manfred Nowak wrote:
Trass3r wrote:
but by using named enums I made clear that Bla and Blub are
totally different
No. Obviously you decjlared both to be implicitely convertable
to a common super type: int. To change this, both supertypes
have be
Trass3r wrote:
> Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype?
Yes. Otherwise it would be at least close to equivalence to a
`typedef'.
-manfred
Trass3r wrote:
> That's why I question the implicit conversion.
Yes. I realized my fault and canceled my message, but wasn't fast
enough.
-manfred
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:16:19 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
But how is just the basic "moving the pointer" compared to other
touchpads?
It's similar. The only thing is, the click is actually a physical button
(the whole pad is a button). On a normal touchpad, you can click by
tapping.
On 01/25/2012 01:38 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
The Json parsing I've initially attempted was a mistake. I've assumed
the XML parsing would be harder than necessary, but I ended up
fighting wxPhp's arbitrary Json output (arrays holding objects of
different types.. which is no good for D, or my san
On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 01:44:23 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Delphi:
http://delphi.about.com/od/beginners/a/delphi_set_type.htm |
Scroll to: "Sets with Enumerations"
Sets use the smallest integer type that can hold enough bits
for the number of elements in an enum. So up to 8 enum flags
us
On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[…]And the
backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a
normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the
cursor) can someone tell me?
Fn + Backspace, on my Macbook Pro.
David
Sorry for my ignorance but why should one use DStep instead of htod in
order to port plain vanilla C headers ? I have to admit that I haven't
tried DStep yet.
Did you try DStep on libxml2, respective libxslt ?
TIA,
Bjoern
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:20:38 -0500, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[…]And the
backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a
normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the
cursor) can someone tell me?
Fn +
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:19:27 -0800
bls wrote:
> Sorry for my ignorance but why should one use DStep instead of htod
> in order to port plain vanilla C headers ? I have to admit that I
> haven't tried DStep yet.
Excuse me for my ignorance about DStep, but htod is Windows-only.
Sincerely,
Gour
Sorry for my ignorance but why should one use DStep instead of
htod in order to port plain vanilla C headers ? I have to
admit that I haven't tried DStep yet.
htod is Windows-only.
And it sucks.
For example it drops const, runs the preprocessor instead of
turning preprocessor directives into
Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the
basetype?
Yes. Otherwise it would be at least close to equivalence to a
`typedef'.
Even typedef implicitly converts in one of the directions.
A named enum is a separate type with a finite set of allowed
values defined by the user.
On 01/26/2012 07:51 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance but why should one use DStep instead of htod
in order to port plain vanilla C headers ? I have to admit that I
haven't tried DStep yet.
htod is Windows-only.
And it sucks.
For example it drops const, runs the preprocessor instead o
Ok,Thanks for clarification! Seems that DStep is a missing link
in the D tool-chain and should be part of the DMD package
I'll try DStep ASAP on libxml2 and libxslt. Will let you know
how it works for me.
I don't think it's in a usable state yet.
I guess SWIG could be useful currently.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:49:58 +0100, Trass3r wrote:
In the codebase I have to work with, having the same enum specified in
different places is rather common. Yeah, I hate it. This means I might
have a filter defined using one enum, and the value to filter being a
different type with the same val
On 1/26/12 10:41 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:20:38 -0500, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[…]And the
backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a
normal delete key would do (delete the character that
My only gripe about the trackpad is that it's impossible to drag with the right
button down. Beyond that, I actually like the control key setup on OSX, even if
it isn't as comprehensive as Windows. The command key has a long history in the
Unix world anyway. It's much better than the Windows key
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:33:12 -0800, kenji hara wrote:
What version do you use?
In 2.058head(commit f8887855), `dmd -H -c test.d` succeeds to compile
without DMD assertion.
Kenji Hara
2012/1/23 Adam Wilson :
Does anyone have any idea why DMD would assert with the following
assert on
this co
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:30:14 -0800, Manu wrote:
On 26 January 2012 03:15, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:05:43 -0800, Manu wrote:
On 26 January 2012 00:55, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:44:09 -0800, Manu wrote:
On 26 January 2012 00:37, Adam Wilson wrote:
Trass3r wrote:
> Even typedef implicitly converts in one of the directions.
`typedef' is or will be disallowed in D because of reasons I do not
understand. In C and C++ their existence introduce problems because
they increase the amount of parsing passes.
> A named enum is a separate type w
On 01/26/2012 02:59 PM, Trass3r wrote:
I thought it'd be good to outsource this question from the other thread
about enums as flags.
Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype?
Imo it only introduces a severe bug source and brings no advantages.
For example it allows impli
The issue is not with aliases, accessability already has a natural grey
area:
module lib;
private struct Foo {}
// Should any of these be allowed?
public Foo getFoo() { return Foo(); }
public void takeFoo(Foo f) {}
struct Bar
{
Foo f;
}
--
module main;
import lib;
On 2012-01-26 15:46, Manu wrote:
On 26 January 2012 16:45, Manu mailto:turkey...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise mailto:marco.le...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts
mailto:bra...@puremagic.com>>:
On 1/24/201
On 2012-01-26 17:18, Trass3r wrote:
Ok,Thanks for clarification! Seems that DStep is a missing link in the
D tool-chain and should be part of the DMD package
I'll try DStep ASAP on libxml2 and libxslt. Will let you know how it
works for me.
I don't think it's in a usable state yet.
I guess SWIG
On 2012-01-26 16:41, Gour wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:19:27 -0800
bls wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance but why should one use DStep instead of htod
in order to port plain vanilla C headers ? I have to admit that I
haven't tried DStep yet.
Excuse me for my ignorance about DStep, but htod is Wi
On 2012-01-26 17:08, bls wrote:
On 01/26/2012 07:51 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance but why should one use DStep instead of htod
in order to port plain vanilla C headers ? I have to admit that I
haven't tried DStep yet.
htod is Windows-only.
And it sucks.
For example it drops const
On 01/26/2012 09:51 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-01-26 17:08, bls wrote:
On 01/26/2012 07:51 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance but why should one use DStep instead of htod
in order to port plain vanilla C headers ? I have to admit that I
haven't tried DStep yet.
htod is Windows-o
That would break the independence between parser and semantic
analyzer, because there's no way to disambiguate "bar" from "Foo.bar"
without knowing, that "Foo" is actually an enum.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-01-26 14:23, Trass3r wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not type s
We need a decision on this topic.
Actively maintaining support for new features?
Cleaning out Win9x code?
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 19:21:53 Martin Nowak wrote:
> We need a decision on this topic.
>
> Actively maintaining support for new features?
>
> Cleaning out Win9x code?
There doesn't seem to be much support for continuing support of Win9x code, so
I think that we're going to axe it. I be
On 01/26/2012 07:21 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
That would break the independence between parser and semantic
analyzer, because there's no way to disambiguate "bar" from "Foo.bar"
without knowing, that "Foo" is actually an enum.
No, it would not. The parser does not have to care.
On Thu, Jan
On 01/26/2012 02:41 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-01-26 14:23, Trass3r wrote:
It's not type safe in C. But you can wrap it in a struct with alias
this instead.
Yep, but in D we have strong enums, so why not use them.
What about be able to do something like this:
enum Foo
{
public:
bar,
On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 15:13:57 UTC, bls wrote:
Andrej,
I can't await your SUCCESS message. For me your upcoming code
is the most important stuff since years.
A few questions : where do I find Vladimir Panteelev's XML
library ? Does this library support XPATH ?
I don't know anything
Le 26/01/2012 14:59, Trass3r a écrit :
I thought it'd be good to outsource this question from the other thread
about enums as flags.
Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype?
Imo it only introduces a severe bug source and brings no advantages.
For example it allows impli
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 19:44:18 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 15:13:57 UTC, bls wrote:
> > Andrej,
> > I can't await your SUCCESS message. For me your upcoming code
> > is the most important stuff since years.
> > A few questions : where do I find Vladimir Panteelev
I have argued for banning those operations on strong enums before, but
some objected to it because they wanted to use strong enums as bit flags.
Yep, that's what the other thread 'using enums for flags' is about.
But implicit conversions seem wrong in any case.
`typedef' is or will be disallowed in D because of reasons I do not
understand.
It's ill-defined. There are 4 possible types of typedef:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467
In C and C++ their existence introduce problems because
they increase the amount of parsing passes.
C
What about be able to do something like this:
enum Foo
{
public:
bar,
fooBar,
}
Foo f = bar;
public is the wrong keyword. Furthermore, the solution is not better
than mixin Import!Foo; I think the extern(C) enum proposal is pragmatic
and makes more sense.
+1
If your binding is for yourself, that's not a big deal. But if you're
putting it out there for public consumption, then I think compatibility
with the C version would be more important. If someone is looking at
sample C code, you should make it they don't need to adjust it much
Yep, one big
On 2012-01-26 19:08, bls wrote:
On 01/26/2012 09:51 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-01-26 17:08, bls wrote:
On 01/26/2012 07:51 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance but why should one use DStep instead of htod
in order to port plain vanilla C headers ? I have to admit that I
haven't tri
On 26.01.2012 14:59, Trass3r wrote:
I thought it'd be good to outsource this question from the other thread
about enums as flags.
Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype?
Allowing it to be used as an argument when calling C functions?
Without it, how would you support
On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Manu wrote:
> On 23 January 2012 02:00, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Erlang *has* been used in multiple large projects and it is likely that you
> make use of some service that is powered by erlang on a daily basis. It is
> successful in its niche. Copying its message passin
On 26.01.2012 00:36, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/25/2012 2:27 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
How about these?
http://images.google.com/search?q=download&tbm=isch&tbs=isz:i
You're in a maze of twisty passages, all different.
The first ones look as though they're showing you where the secret
bu
On 01/26/2012 09:07 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Manu wrote:
On 23 January 2012 02:00, Timon Gehr wrote:
Erlang *has* been used in multiple large projects and it is likely that you
make use of some service that is powered by erlang on a daily basis. It is
successful in
Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype?
Allowing it to be used as an argument when calling C functions?
extern(C):
enum Bla : int {...}
void foo(Bla b);
How does this require implicit conversion?
The codegen treats Bla like basetype anyway.
On 26 January 2012 22:07, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Manu wrote:
>
> > On 23 January 2012 02:00, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > Erlang *has* been used in multiple large projects and it is likely that
> you make use of some service that is powered by erlang on a daily basis. It
> is
Am 26.01.2012, 18:47 Uhr, schrieb Jacob Carlborg :
On 2012-01-26 15:46, Manu wrote:
On 26 January 2012 16:45, Manu mailto:turkey...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise mailto:marco.le...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts
ma
On 01/26/2012 10:19 PM, Manu wrote:
C# has generics. Not quite like D templates, more like C++, but still...
C# generics and C++/D templates are *very* different things. C# generics
make code type check (and duplicate static variables), templates
duplicate the whole code. C# does not have an
On 1/26/12, bls wrote:
> A few questions : where do I find Vladimir Panteelev's XML library ?
https://github.com/CyberShadow/ae/blob/master/utils/ (see xml.d)
> Does this library support XPATH ?
I'm not sure. It's a light-weight library, you're probably not going
to see libxml2 features in ther
Trass3r wrote:
> It's ill-defined. There are 4 possible types of typedef:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467
[...]
> Again, this thread is all about discussing the right way to do it
> and not about what the buggy and holey spec reads.
[...]
> I don't see any merit in that.
Y
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.v8o5k6h4eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>
> If you can bring yourself to stomach the apple store atmosphere,
Heh :)
> I encourage you to visit one and try it out. It's definitely different
> than any other interface I've ever used.
>
Maybe I
"Sean Kelly" wrote in message
news:mailman.49.1327595627.25230.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>The command key has a long
>history in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than
>the Windows key that just does one thing, and something
>I've never actually wanted to do.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
I
On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 19:02:30 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
xmlp is the one that Tomaz is working on to replace std.xml,
correct? Any idea how close it is to actually being submitted
for review?
- Jonathan M Davis
Michael Rynn, no I don't know what Tomaz is up to. Maybe some
form
El 26/01/2012 14:59, Trass3r escribió:
I thought it'd be good to outsource this question from the other thread
about enums as flags.
Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype?
Imo it only introduces a severe bug source and brings no advantages.
A better example is somet
Alvaro wrote:
> With a non-int-convertible bool your above weird
> example would not work.
But that the example works is not the fault of the existence of enums.
It is due to the fact that omission, inclusion or change of one
character can produce a different value without any warning.
-manf
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:31:34 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Sean Kelly" wrote in message
news:mailman.49.1327595627.25230.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The command key has a long
history in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than
the Windows key that just does one thing, and something
I
On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> The Apple key is treated like the control key - You just have to remember
> that when you'd normally go for Control, on the Mac you'd do Apple instead.
> I don't remember what the hell the Mac's "Control" key is for. My Option key
> actual
On Jan 26, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Manu wrote:
> On 26 January 2012 22:07, Sean Kelly wrote:
>
> What I like about "receiveOnly" is that the name itself suggests that
> anything other than the specified type is not expected, and so some measure
> will probably be taken.
>
> Again, this only makes
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:49:40 +0100, Alvaro
wrote:
El 26/01/2012 14:59, Trass3r escribió:
I thought it'd be good to outsource this question from the other thread
about enums as flags.
Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype?
Imo it only introduces a severe bug source a
On 26/01/2012 15:41, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:20:38 -0500, David Nadlinger wrote:
On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[…]And the
backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a
normal delete key would do (delete the character that
A pattern in D is this:
alias Foo!q{
stuffs
} MyFoo;
Where Foo is a templated struct/class. In many ways, this is similar to
defining a new type, and I therefore throw out the suggestion that the
syntax should reflect this. I may be wrong, but I think this syntax is
unused and fitting:
Foo
"Sean Kelly" wrote in message
news:mailman.70.1327626159.25230.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> The Apple key is treated like the control key - You just have to remember
>> that when you'd normally go for Control, on the Mac you'd do Apple
On 27/01/2012 01:36, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Heh, yea. That's something thing I always found funny: Apple always used to
prepackage one-button mice with their right-click-capable OSX machines
because "one-button mice are simpler and easier". But I never understood how
"control-click" qualified as
"Stewart Gordon" wrote in message
news:jfsuc5$12pl$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Who decides what constitutes a "normal delete key"?
That's "normal" as in "95% of the PCs in the past 20 years." ;) (And macs
*are* "personal computers", contrary to the ads.)
FWIW though, any mention of "8-bit" do
"Stewart Gordon" wrote in message
news:jfsvfh$14ek$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 27/01/2012 01:36, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> Heh, yea. That's something thing I always found funny: Apple always used
>> to
>> prepackage one-button mice with their right-click-capable OSX machines
>> because "one-
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:jft09p$160q$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Stewart Gordon" wrote in message
> news:jfsuc5$12pl$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I've been reminded of the iMac G3 that I was made to use for some of my
>> time as a PhD student. Just the backspace key, no delete
> > Heh, yea. That's something thing I always found funny:
> Apple always used to
> > prepackage one-button mice with their
> right-click-capable OSX machines
> > because "one-button mice are simpler and easier". But I
> never understood how
> > "control-click" qualified as simpler or easier than
>
>>
>> I see, well that's good. I presume then that it shouldn't be too much
>> trouble to implement MS C++'s ref type ABI in D then if it is just
>> basically COM.
>> How about 'delegate'? Would it be trouble to make the extern ABI
>> compatible
>> when passing delegates between MSC++/D?
>
> Theor
>>
>> I do Win-R all the time. Win-D is nice, too, although I tend to forget
>> about
>> it.
>
> Win-L is lock screen or "return to welcome screen" if you have that
> enabled. That's a useful one.
>
Don't forget Win-E for my computer, Win-F for find and Win-Pause to open
system properties. Al
I think if you design an interface where the input device has only one button
as opposed to multiple buttons, etc, one could argue that the result will be
easier to learn. I know I always had trouble explaining the use of the right
mouse button in Windows to my parents.
On Jan 26, 2012, at 5:5
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Sean Kelly" wrote in message
> news:mailman.49.1327595627.25230.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>The command key has a long
>>history in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than
>>the Windows key that just does one thing, and somethin
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrew Wiley" wrote in message
> news:mailman.40.1327562674.25230.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
>>> news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka@localhost.
> alias int UITableViewRowAnimation;
> enum
> {
> UITableViewRowAnimationFade,
> UITableViewRowAnimationRight,
> UITableViewRowAnimationLeft,
> UITableViewRowAnimationTop,
> UITableViewRowAnimationBottom,
> UITableViewRowAnimationNone,
> UITableViewRowAnimationMiddle,
> UITableViewRowAnimationAutom
On 2012-01-26 22:31, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 26.01.2012, 18:47 Uhr, schrieb Jacob Carlborg :
On 2012-01-26 15:46, Manu wrote:
On 26 January 2012 16:45, Manu mailto:turkey...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise mailto:marco.le...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, sc
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:18:10 +0100, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 1/26/12, bls wrote:
A few questions : where do I find Vladimir Panteelev's XML library ?
https://github.com/CyberShadow/ae/blob/master/utils/ (see xml.d)
Does this library support XPATH ?
I'm not sure. It's a light-weight l
On 1/27/12, equi...@atw.hu wrote:
> It is not clear what you do not use xml in tango library.
I'm using D2, not D1.
99 matches
Mail list logo
