Re: Contextualizing keywords

[Michael Mittner]

Robert Fraser wrote:

> Thoughts?

Maybe doing more things analog to scope(exit/etc) might be an idea, where we 
have one "major" keyword and a couple of "minor" ones that differentiate the 
meaning further.

-Mike

Re: Contextualizing keywords

[Michael Mittner]

Ary Borenszweig wrote:

> Yes. Maybe every keyword could be just "keyword(...)". For example:
> keyword(static), keyword(final), etc. For example this code now:
> 
> pure SomeType foo() {
> }
> 
> would be, with this change:
> 
> keyword(pure) SomeType foo() {
> }
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> Or maybe:
> 
> @pure void foo() {
> }
> 
> :-)

For future extensibility it should be

 SomeType foo() { /* ... */ }

;)

Re: Contextualizing keywords

[Michael Mittner]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

> You referring to that blogger who said he was "ready for languages
> with keywords enclosed in XML tags" after seeing a D presentation?  ;)

No, I didn't see that one.

Is it possible that the Karmic upgrade interferes with dmd?

[Michael Mittner]

I've got a very strange problem and I wanted to ask if you guys have any 
ideas.

Yesterday I compiled my project with dmd 1.041 and Tango and it worked. 
Today I compiled the same code again to get started (I sometimes like to 
just do a full rebuild to get started) and I get this message:

/usr/local/bin/../import/tango/math/IEEE.d(641): number is not representable

The only thing that really has changed since the last build is that I 
upgraded to Karmic today. But I can't think of any connection, besides maybe 
the linking that could be affected by that. So I thought I'll ask here, 
maybe someone of you can think of anything.

Thanks,
Mike

Re: Is it possible that the Karmic upgrade interferes with dmd?

[Michael Mittner]

Walter Bright wrote:

> It could be that the C library routine strtold(), which the lexer relies
> on, changed. That has nothing to do with linking.

Hmm. This is where dmd struggles:

641:[0x1.a5f1c2eb3fe4efp+73, 0x1.A5F1C2EB3FE4EFp-1,   74],// normal

I have no idea how the lexer works, but that sounds pretty plausible when I 
look at that constant in there.

Anyway, after further investigation I figured out that it's a unittest, so I 
just commented it out and it compiles now without problems. Maybe it's just 
a fluke, I guess we'll see if someone else will have the same problem. I, 
for one, am satisfied; my code compiles, and that is all that counts.

Some additional info: I tried it with dmd 1.050 too, same thing. My Tango 
import is a rather current checkout, I diff'd against a checkout I made 
about 15 minutes ago and the problematic file is the same as in Tango's 
trunk. And nothing compiles as soon as I import tango.math (which in turn 
imports IEEE.d).

-Mike

Re: Is it possible that the Karmic upgrade interferes with dmd?

[Michael Mittner]

Don wrote:

> That's odd. Please try adding an 'L' to end of each of each constant.
>  [0x1.a5f1c2eb3fe4efp+73L, 0x1.A5F1C2EB3FE4EFp-1L,   74],

Oh, I'm really sorry, I copied the wrong line (this was 640). Here's the 
guilty line (641, this time for real):

 [0x1.fa01712e8f0471ap-1064,  0x1.fa01712e8f0471ap-1, -1063],

Adding 'L' to the first constant works:

 [0x1.fa01712e8f0471ap-1064L,  0x1.fa01712e8f0471ap-1, -1063],

Thanks!

-Mike