Re: SHOO's time code
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:12:14 +, Moritz Warning wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 06:45:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:10:05 -0400, Moritz Warning >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:24:40 +, superdan wrote: >>> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article > On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:39:12 -0400, superdan wrote: > > guys go with boost and std.gregorian n shit. sorry shoo. tango is > > a fucking boat anchor for d. shit. > Having written most of the API for tango.time, I sorta like it :) I > really like the API that SHOO came up with based on it. If there's > any way to get SHOO's code into Phobos, I want to pursue that first. > If this fails, we can go with boost. > -Steve i feel ya bro. i once sorta liked a hoe with herpes. way i c it is simple. it's fucking dates and fucking times. wut the fuck. ain't a fucking operating system. no matter how u dress a pig u still call it a fucking pig. if u have da datetime functionality it don't matter to be cute. we is wasting time sucking lars douche's cock 2 give us permission 2 his fucking shit. fuck that shit. dis must be da least amount of power that got to some idiot's head. >>> >>> Wut? >>> >>> Person A wrote some code and had a look at code from person B. Now >>> person C says that A need to get permission from B so that C can use >>> the code from A. >>> The reason is because the license of the code written by B isn't quite >>> compatible with the license recently chosen by C. >>> >>> And now you are calling B an idiot/douche for that reason? >> >> Let's make it a bit clearer. Person A *used* the code from person B, >> and used the *documentation* of said code to write his own similar >> library. Person A has not claimed that he looked at the source. > I agree, that's more accurate. > >> Person B claims that it is impossible to do so without actually looking > at the >> source, but has not yet cited any specific copying. Person C doesn't >> want any trouble, and just is being extra careful. > Afaik, Person B haven't looked at the source in question but relied on > what others said. > I think it was a move forward in anticipation to Person Cs license > sensibility. > Anyway, Person B haven't hesitated when asked to give permission > himself. I have to correct that line, it's more like *no comment*. :/
Re: SHOO's time code
On 2010-05-14 00:52, Moritz Warning wrote: I have asked Kris Bell and Matti Niemenmaa. No Problem at all. Since this evidently needs confirming: I'm fine with relicensing any of my contributions to the tango.time modules under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. -- E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Re: SHOO's time code
On Wed, 19 May 2010 06:45:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:10:05 -0400, Moritz Warning > wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:24:40 +, superdan wrote: >> >>> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:39:12 -0400, superdan wrote: > guys go with boost and std.gregorian n shit. sorry shoo. tango is a > fucking boat anchor for d. shit. Having written most of the API for tango.time, I sorta like it :) I really like the API that SHOO came up with based on it. If there's any way to get SHOO's code into Phobos, I want to pursue that first. If this fails, we can go with boost. -Steve >>> >>> i feel ya bro. i once sorta liked a hoe with herpes. >>> >>> way i c it is simple. it's fucking dates and fucking times. wut the >>> fuck. ain't a fucking operating system. no matter how u dress a pig u >>> still call it a fucking pig. if u have da datetime functionality it >>> don't matter to be cute. we is wasting time sucking lars douche's cock >>> 2 give us permission 2 his fucking shit. fuck that shit. dis must be >>> da least amount of power that got to some idiot's head. >> >> Wut? >> >> Person A wrote some code and had a look at code from person B. Now >> person C says that A need to get permission from B so that C can use >> the code from A. >> The reason is because the license of the code written by B isn't quite >> compatible with the license recently chosen by C. >> >> And now you are calling B an idiot/douche for that reason? > > Let's make it a bit clearer. Person A *used* the code from person B, > and used the *documentation* of said code to write his own similar > library. Person A has not claimed that he looked at the source. I agree, that's more accurate. > Person B claims that it is impossible to do so without actually looking at the > source, but has not yet cited any specific copying. Person C doesn't > want any trouble, and just is being extra careful. Afaik, Person B haven't looked at the source in question but relied on what others said. I think it was a move forward in anticipation to Person Cs license sensibility. Anyway, Person B haven't hesitated when asked to give permission himself. > I don't really like the situation, but if this is the way it has to be, > then let's get it done and move on. right :) > -Steve
Re: Bug fix week
On 2010-05-24 16.17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 05/24/2010 09:08 AM, Don wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: We've had a tremendous infusion of talent and energy in Phobos, and lately work has picked up in unprecedented ways, both in terms of new features and bug fixes. I can't say how happy I am about that! At the end of this starting week, on Friday May 28, TDPL will be out on trucks to bookstores. Let's make this week a bug fixing week for both dmd and Phobos, and issue a release on Monday. We're going public! Andrei IMHO, one of the most important bugs to fix is actually a spec bug: 4056 Template instantiation with bare parameter not documented The foo!int syntax as a shortcut for foo!(int) isn't documented anywhere in the spec!! This is an embarrassing omission and should be fixed ASAP. Anyone could submit a patch with suggested wording for this one. I agree that's bad, but somewhat ironically it's not as bad for TDPL's timeline. The syntax _is_ documented in TDPL. Andrei I would say that's even worse, let me explain. In D if you run into a problem/bug with the compiler you never now where the problem is. * Is it the spec that is correct and the compiler doesn't follow the spec? * Is it the spec that is incorrect and the compiler behaves correctly? * Perhaps the spec is correct and the compiler follows the spec but a feature is not implemented correctly? * Perhaps the spec is correct but the compiler doesn't implement the feature yet. Now when TDPL comes into the picture there is yet another layer to all this. Now you can have the behavior when TDPL is correct but the compiler and the spec is incorrect or any other combination of the now three parties. -- /Jacob Carlborg
