Re: Symmetry Investments and the D Language Foundation are Hiring
On Sunday, 30 August 2020 at 20:12:41 UTC, Arjan wrote: On Sunday, 30 August 2020 at 14:13:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Looking for a full-time or part-time gig? Not only is Symmetry Investments hiring D programmers, they are also generously funding two positions for ecosystem work under the D Language Foundation. And they've put up a bounty for a new DUB feature. Read all about it here: https://dlang.org/blog/2020/08/30/symmetry-investments-and-the-d-language-foundation-are-hiring/ Fantastic! Thanks Symmetry! Epic, this is a gamechanger!
Re: From the D Blog: A Pattern for Head-mutable Structures
On Sunday, 28 June 2020 at 16:31:35 UTC, Avrina wrote: On Sunday, 28 June 2020 at 02:52:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: If that's not good enough for you, then I have nothing else to say on the matter. Replies like this one and andrei are why. You are directing a community around a topic to an article about that topic. What do you think they are going to do? There's a reason why votes don't count when an article is linked directly. They didn't do it by mistake. No worries, I'll post the direct link for you in the future. I got you covered. I have a feature request to the forum engine, automatically delete all posts with hn deeplinks, problem solved.
Re: Release D 2.067.0
On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 17:08:03 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Glad to announce D 2.067.0. https://dlang.dawg.eu/downloads/dmd.2.067.0/ -Martin Congrats! Although, I must admit, I was a little saddened to see that multiple alias this didn't make the release, I thought it was finalized... I should have kept a closer watch. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3998
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 16:49:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the final: label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. Andrei Just to try and establish a clear path forwards, if a pull request existed which added support for... final!true final!false ... would it be accepted? Or would a generic negate-x-DIP be required? const!false noexcept!false etc.
