On 1/18/2015 8:34 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/18/15 5:44 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-01-17 18:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm the author so I'm waiting for comments from the others, not prone to
commenting on my own proposal. --- Andrei
I'm not sure who made the proposal
On 2015-01-17 18:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm the author so I'm waiting for comments from the others, not prone to
commenting on my own proposal. --- Andrei
I'm not sure who made the proposal but Walter created the pull request.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 1/17/2015 7:38 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I am a bit surprised though that you agreed to it
given that in previous discussions you seemed opposed to adding any more
attributes for parameters. It does make for a fairly straightforward
solution though.
Your last sentence
On 1/18/15 5:44 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-01-17 18:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm the author so I'm waiting for comments from the others, not prone to
commenting on my own proposal. --- Andrei
I'm not sure who made the proposal but Walter created the pull request.
Walter and I
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:55:13 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
I'm working on an article/DIP which actually goes further than
the new DIP25, but is nonetheless completely compatible with
it. I'll have the article in a day or two.
Here it is:
On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 21:21:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/17/2015 4:40 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
So when handling ref-related edge cases, do we now have to
handle 3
cases? not-ref, ref, and return-ref right?
How do I know if some argument is return-ref? I guess we'll
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding
with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
Congratulations to all, I like it, now: It's for sure
On 2015-01-17 00:01, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
P.S. I like this DIP, but I do not like way how things are done :(
Please participate to improving how things are done.
How can we do that when you're just saying things like Time to move
forward, it's
On 17 January 2015 at 07:41, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the opt-in
implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
So when handling ref-related edge
On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 01:51:25 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 8:18 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 4:56 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 6:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Why DIP says: Last Modified:
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:55:13 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding
with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
On 1/17/15 4:40 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I guess we'll need
another annoying __traits or something so I can pipe that information
into my mixins that deal with ref mess...
Yes. -- Andrei
On 1/17/15 3:56 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-01-17 00:01, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
P.S. I like this DIP, but I do not like way how things are done :(
Please participate to improving how things are done.
How can we do that when you're just
On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 17:08:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:55:13 UTC, Zach the Mystic
I'm working on an article/DIP which actually goes further than
the new DIP25, but is nonetheless completely compatible with
it. I'll have the article in a day or two.
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding
with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
It seems to me that once this DIP is implemented, it should be
safe
On 1/17/2015 4:40 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
So when handling ref-related edge cases, do we now have to handle 3
cases? not-ref, ref, and return-ref right?
How do I know if some argument is return-ref? I guess we'll need
another annoying __traits or something so I can pipe that
On Friday, January 16, 2015 13:41:24 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
I would point out that the Deduction section has code that won't
On 18 January 2015 at 07:20, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 1/17/2015 4:40 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
So when handling ref-related edge cases, do we now have to handle 3
cases? not-ref, ref, and return-ref right?
How do I know if some argument is
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding
with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
I'm working on an article/DIP which actually goes further than
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding
with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
I added support to my tools a few days ago:
https://github.com
On 1/16/2015 1:41 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the opt-in
implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4298
On 1/16/15 4:41 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
I was about to complain because I remember not liking that DIP, but I
see you removed inout
On 1/16/15 2:00 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
I added support to my tools
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding
with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
Some questions
What is purpose of DIPs?
Who can approve them?
How
On 1/16/15 5:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
Some questions
What
On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
Some questions
What
pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
Some questions
What is purpose of DIPs?
To have a more formal place to put a proposal for a major D language
improvement.
Who can approve them?
Ultimately, Walter.
How can something been preliminarily approved without
On 16.01.15 22:41, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
Why is it restricted to @safe?
On 1/16/2015 2:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can potentially see a situation like this:
auto fun(T)(return ref T x)
Where the auto deduces to something that couldn't possibly match T or any piece
of it. Causing this function to error just because of a type mismatch is the
wrong move.
On 1/16/15 6:10 PM, zeljkog wrote:
On 16.01.15 22:41, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
Why is it restricted to @safe?
I don't think
On 1/16/2015 3:10 PM, zeljkog wrote:
Why is it restricted to @safe?
Being a systems programming language, an escape from it may be necessary.
Walter Bright:
On 1/16/2015 3:10 PM, zeljkog wrote:
Why is it restricted to @safe?
Being a systems programming language, an escape from it may be
necessary.
But this DIP to have a meaning should go with a @safe by
default, I think.
Bye,
bearophile
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding
with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
I prefer the new syntax, this is a good change.
Is this DIP
On 1/16/15 3:10 PM, zeljkog wrote:
On 16.01.15 22:41, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
Why is it restricted to @safe?
To avoid some of the code
On 1/16/15 6:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/16/2015 3:10 PM, zeljkog wrote:
Why is it restricted to @safe?
Being a systems programming language, an escape from it may be necessary.
So:
ref int foo(ref int x) { return x; }
is OK as long as it's not marked @safe? Is this made clear in the
On 1/16/15 3:45 PM, weaselcat wrote:
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
Andrei
I prefer the new syntax
On 1/16/15 3:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 6:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/16/2015 3:10 PM, zeljkog wrote:
Why is it restricted to @safe?
Being a systems programming language, an escape from it may be necessary.
So:
ref int foo(ref int x) { return x; }
is OK as long as
On 1/16/15 7:14 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The DIP applies to @safe code only for now. Steve, could you please add
a clarifying section. Thanks! -- Andrei
OK, done. Please review.
-Steve
On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 00:14:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/16/15 3:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 6:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/16/2015 3:10 PM, zeljkog wrote:
Why is it restricted to @safe?
Being a systems programming language, an escape from it may
On 1/16/15 4:24 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 7:14 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The DIP applies to @safe code only for now. Steve, could you please add
a clarifying section. Thanks! -- Andrei
OK, done. Please review.
Just what the doctor prescribed, thanks! -- Andrei
On 1/16/15 6:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Why DIP says: Last Modified: 2015-01-11
but from history I see lots of changing after that date?
I wish that were automated.
Well, it does include last modified automatically at the bottom of the
page.
On 1/16/15 4:56 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 6:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Why DIP says: Last Modified: 2015-01-11
but from history I see lots of changing after that date?
I wish that were automated.
Well, it does include last
On 1/16/15 8:18 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 4:56 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 6:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Why DIP says: Last Modified: 2015-01-11
but from history I see lots of changing after that date?
I wish that
On 1/16/15 5:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 8:18 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 4:56 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/16/15 6:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Why DIP says: Last Modified: 2015-01-11
but from history I see
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 19:21:38 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 1/5/15 10:05 AM, Meta wrote:
IMO, inout (and const/immutable to a degree) is a failure for
use with
class/struct methods. This became clear to me when trying to
use it for
the toString implementation of Nullable.
On 1/8/15 4:04 PM, Meta wrote:
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 19:21:38 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/5/15 10:05 AM, Meta wrote:
IMO, inout (and const/immutable to a degree) is a failure for use with
class/struct methods. This became clear to me when trying to use it for
the toString
On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 at 09:11:10 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Dominikus Dittes Scherkl:
Yeah. I wish it would be possilbe to do something like:
alias @smooth = @save pure nothrow @nogc;
and then use this instead.
You most probably want something more principled instead, as
the algebra of
On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 at 09:11:10 UTC, bearophile wrote:
You most probably want something more principled instead, as
the algebra of effects of Koka language
(http://rise4fun.com/Koka/tutorial/guide ) or something even
better.
Thanks for sharing the link. I had not heard of Koka before.
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 22:04:58 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Making some way to bundle attributes, or be able to negate
currently one-way attributes would go a long way IMO.
Yeah. I wish it would be possilbe to do something like:
alias @smooth = @save pure nothrow @nogc;
and then
Dominikus Dittes Scherkl:
Yeah. I wish it would be possilbe to do something like:
alias @smooth = @save pure nothrow @nogc;
and then use this instead.
You most probably want something more principled instead, as the
algebra of effects of Koka language
On 1/6/15 1:48 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/5/2015 2:04 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
To give you an example of why that sucks, imagine that your accessor for
member_x is nothrow, but your setter is not. This means you either
make an
exception, or you just split up obvious file-mates into
On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 at 06:48:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
One of the most important reasons why unittests are so
successful is that you
can just plop the code that tests a function right next to it.
So easy to find
the code, so easy to maintain when you change the target of
the test.
On 1/5/2015 2:04 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
To give you an example of why that sucks, imagine that your accessor for
member_x is nothrow, but your setter is not. This means you either make an
exception, or you just split up obvious file-mates into separate corners.
Source control gets
On 1/5/15 8:06 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 29 December 2014 at 20:26:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/29/14 2:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/29/2014 5:53 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/28/14 4:33 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
inout is not transitive, so a ref on the
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 21:08:29 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
This mostly matches my current opinion of DIP25 + DIP69 as
well. It is not as much problem of lacking power but utterly
breaking KISS principle - too many special cases to remember,
too many concepts to learn. Path of minimal
On Monday, 29 December 2014 at 20:26:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 12/29/14 2:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/29/2014 5:53 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/28/14 4:33 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
inout is not transitive, so a ref on the container doesn't
apply to a
ref on the
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 14:00:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 1/5/15 8:06 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 29 December 2014 at 20:26:27 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/29/14 2:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/29/2014 5:53 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/28/14 4:33
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 14:00:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
I strongly disagree :) inout enables so many things that just
aren't possible otherwise.
Most recent example:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/1079
inout only gets confusing when you start using
On Sunday, 4 January 2015 at 01:12:14 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
It's like this: ref is a massive problem when it finds it's way
into meta.
ref is relatively rare today... so the problem is occasional.
scope on the other hand will be epic compared to ref. If we
infer
scope (which we'll
On 1/5/15 4:10 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/30/2014 4:14 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But I agree. The problem is, most times, you WANT to ensure your code
is @safe
pure nothrow (and now @nogc), even for template functions. That's a
lot of
baggage to put on each signature. I just helped
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 19:18:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 1/5/15 11:51 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 14:00:13 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
I strongly disagree :) inout enables so many things that just
aren't
possible otherwise.
Most recent example:
On 1/5/15 11:51 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 14:00:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I strongly disagree :) inout enables so many things that just aren't
possible otherwise.
Most recent example:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/1079
inout only
On 1/5/15 10:05 AM, Meta wrote:
IMO, inout (and const/immutable to a degree) is a failure for use with
class/struct methods. This became clear to me when trying to use it for
the toString implementation of Nullable.
You'd have to be more specific for me to understand your point. inout
was
On 12/30/2014 4:14 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But I agree. The problem is, most times, you WANT to ensure your code is @safe
pure nothrow (and now @nogc), even for template functions. That's a lot of
baggage to put on each signature. I just helped someone recently who wanted to
put @nogc on
It's like this: ref is a massive problem when it finds it's way
into meta.
ref is relatively rare today... so the problem is occasional.
scope on the other hand will be epic compared to ref. If we
infer
scope (which we'll probably need to), chances are, the vast
majority
of functions will
On 03/01/15 15:42, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I've heard this a few times before over the years, and it hasn't happened yet.
Perhaps we're not growing at the the necessary rapid rate, but I think new
people try to blend into what they see other people doing, so as long as at any
On 1 Jan 2015 18:46, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 29/12/14 05:13, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I did want to say something about this. I've given a close read to the
Lost a
new commercial user this week thread, through and
On 1/2/2015 9:27 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I feel like your resistance of comprehensive scope is some part
emotional, some part anecdotal... but little or not parts
experimentally based.
You appear to 'fear' what it would do... and maybe you have the
experience to judge that better than
On 1/2/2015 11:31 PM, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
On 3/01/2015 7:55 p.m., Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/2/15 4:05 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
That said, I don't see any pressing need for something formal at this
point in time. Some friendly suggestions, guidelines or
On Saturday, 3 January 2015 at 08:41:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/2/2015 9:27 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I feel like your resistance of comprehensive scope is some part
emotional, some part anecdotal... but little or not parts
experimentally based.
You appear to 'fear' what it would
On Saturday, 3 January 2015 at 00:06:10 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Obviously D does not have such a problem right now, but as the
number of people active on the forums grows, there are
inevitably going to be more and more instances of people
behaving antisocially,
On 12/31/2014 07:17 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
And even then, passing by value in not something you would do! Why
would you ever pass some big struct by value?
Sure if it's an rvalue.
On 4 January 2015 at 10:38, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 12/31/2014 07:17 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
And even then, passing by value in not something you would do! Why
would you ever pass some big struct by value?
Sure if it's an rvalue.
On 3 January 2015 at 18:41, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 1/2/2015 9:27 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I feel like your resistance of comprehensive scope is some part
emotional, some part anecdotal... but little or not parts
experimentally based.
On 1/3/2015 5:12 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Are you saying const was a mistake? Should we be trying to avoid using
const? And use that as justification against in this case?
const to me suggested a limit on what we can do in pushing annotations on
people. It is also quite simple in
On 4 January 2015 at 13:34, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 1/3/2015 5:12 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I was firmly in support of Marc's design. I'm not sure why it was
rejected.
What were the problems? Why did it become a storage class, other than
On 1/3/2015 5:12 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I was firmly in support of Marc's design. I'm not sure why it was rejected.
What were the problems? Why did it become a storage class, other than
because of fear that it might pervade too deeply if it were part of
the type?
I felt unaddressed
On 1/1/15 10:45 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 29/12/14 05:13, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I did want to say something about this. I've given a close read to the
Lost a
new commercial user this week thread, through and through. It seems I've
identified
On 12/31/2014 3:23 AM, Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= schue...@gmx.net wrote:
So... how does this apply to our problem concretely? Do you believe a full blown
ownership/lifetime system is the wrong kind of power? Remember, we're talking
about an ideal world at first. If after thorough discussion
On 02/01/15 10:26, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Good stuff, thanks. Question about this:
I'm glad it seems useful; I wondered after writing if it was a bit too much of a
rambling mess :-P
TL;DR: I think it would be good to have a strong community guideline
that people are
On 1/2/2015 1:17 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
How about a link at the top of the forum.dlang.org page saying something like,
Before posting, please read our _community guidelines_ ? With the page linked
to containing advice like the above.
I know that there's always
On 02/01/15 22:16, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I don't believe it is impossible to implement in D, in fact, Bartosz Milewski
proposed such a system some years back. I do believe that people will simply
reject such a system as too hard to use.
Isn't that dependent on the use-case,
On 1/2/15, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 1/2/2015 1:55 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Considering how much time one has to spend scratching their head what
type of a variable something is in Python, I think the *true slackers*
prefer
On 1/2/2015 4:05 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 02/01/15 23:50, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
That said, I don't see any pressing need for something formal at this point in
time. Some friendly suggestions, guidelines or advice -- that's another thing
and
On 3/01/2015 7:55 p.m., Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/2/15 4:05 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
That said, I don't see any pressing need for something formal at this
point in time. Some friendly suggestions, guidelines or advice --
that's another thing and doesn't need
TL;DR: I think it would be good to have a strong community
guideline
that people are not to be criticized or treated badly for
having
requests or suggestions, even if they are not willing to
implement
them themselves. The quid pro quo is that it's necessary to be
(calmly) candid with people
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 1/1/15 10:45 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 29/12/14 05:13, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I did want to say something about this. I've given a
On 1/2/2015 1:55 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Considering how much time one has to spend scratching their head what
type of a variable something is in Python, I think the *true slackers*
prefer statically typed languages. One hit of the compile button and
if it works you're 99%
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 10:55:21PM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 1/2/15, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
(The reason dynamically typed languages are enduringly popular is
that it is easier to write code in them. People are inherently
On 1/2/15, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
(The reason dynamically typed languages are enduringly popular is that it is
easier to write code in them. People are inherently lazy.)
Considering how much time one has to spend scratching their head what
type of a
On 02/01/15 23:50, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I've been extremely reluctant to have any sort of official conduct code. I
prefer a gentle nudge on a case by case basis, and just deleting the posts of
incorrigible trolls.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and I do have a lot of sympathy with
On 1/3/15, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 1/2/2015 3:17 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote:
auto still kicks ass of course, especially for ranges and template code.
Bluntly, auto makes those usable.
Yeah it shouldn't be looked upon as a
On 1/2/2015 2:38 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 02/01/15 22:16, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I don't believe it is impossible to implement in D, in fact, Bartosz Milewski
proposed such a system some years back. I do believe that people will simply
reject such
I've been extremely reluctant to have any sort of official
conduct code. I prefer a gentle nudge on a case by case basis,
and just deleting the posts of incorrigible trolls.
Leading by example, implicit expectations of good conduct, and
peer pressure can be amazingly effective.
Yes, we
On 1/2/2015 3:17 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote:
auto still kicks ass of course, especially for ranges and template code.
Bluntly, auto makes those usable.
On 3 January 2015 at 10:07, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 1/2/2015 2:38 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 02/01/15 22:16, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I don't believe it is impossible to implement in D, in fact, Bartosz
On 1/2/15 1:17 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 02/01/15 10:26, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Good stuff, thanks. Question about this:
I'm glad it seems useful; I wondered after writing if it was a bit too
much of a rambling mess :-P
TL;DR: I think it
On 1/2/15 4:05 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
That said, I don't see any pressing need for something formal at this
point in time. Some friendly suggestions, guidelines or advice --
that's another thing and doesn't need to be provided in a formal way.
So now should I
On 29/12/14 05:13, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I did want to say something about this. I've given a close read to the Lost a
new commercial user this week thread, through and through. It seems I've
identified a problem that belongs to us. (Us is a vacuous term meaning the
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
