Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 31/03/2009 00:36, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Sure, it is not the only project that is GPL'd, but it is one of the
only GPL'd projects out there that is the basis of a successful company.
I don't really know of any others. So here is a challenge, name 10 of
those compan
From my limited legal understanding, which being so limited can only be
considered an unlearned opinion, I think that the clause "arising out of
your use of the Software" limits the entire paragraph.
Obviously, if I were to write a malicious virus in D, no one ought to
sue Walter. They should
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 30/03/2009 04:42, Mike Parker wrote:
No, it gives no freedom to developers at all. Using any GPL code in your
project /forces/ you to open your source. It takes the decision of
whether to open or not out of your hands and puts it in the hands of
whomever created the GPLe
Sean Kelly wrote:
== Quote from Sergey Gromov (snake.sc...@gmail.com)'s article
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:42:48 -0400, Chad J wrote:
Maybe what you are looking for are the GC.removeRoot or GC.removeRange
functions which are available in both Phobos and Tango?
http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/doc
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Christopher Wright wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
This was discussed several times in the past. For example:
http://w
On 31/03/2009 00:36, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, it would not be reasonable. In fact that would just be a nice fat
paycheck for the plaintiff's lawyer (and probably the defendant's
lawyer) and nothing else.
Nobody can expect someone to glimpse at machine code and later recall
how it was code
Christopher Wright wrote:
Chris wrote:
Greetings to all !
I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved
it), but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:
"You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
subsidiaries, affiliates, d
== Quote from Denis Koroskin (2kor...@gmail.com)'s article
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:46:32 +0400, dsimcha wrote:
> > At times, like when trying to write a syntactically sweet tuple
> > unpacker, I've
> > wanted to be able to declare a variable that will be passed by reference
> > to a
> > function
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:46:32 +0400, dsimcha wrote:
At times, like when trying to write a syntactically sweet tuple
unpacker, I've
wanted to be able to declare a variable that will be passed by reference
to a
function inside the function call. For example:
void doStuff(out uint num) { //
At times, like when trying to write a syntactically sweet tuple unpacker, I've
wanted to be able to declare a variable that will be passed by reference to a
function inside the function call. For example:
void doStuff(out uint num) { // Could also be ref uint num.
num = 666;
}
import std.st
Will we be able to read the article online after polishing?
>I am writing an article for a programming magazine entitled "The Case for
>D".
>
> Would anyone be interested in reviewing it before publication? Please send
> me private email if so. I will need to limit the number of reviewers to a
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:03:49 -0400, Kagamin wrote:
> Georg Wrede Wrote:
>
>> Seems BSD should be Our Way:
>>
>> [...] has a downside, the downside is that people, especially lawyers,
>> especially corporate bosses look at the GPL and experience fear. Fear
>> that all of their corporate secrets,
== Quote from Sergey Gromov (snake.sc...@gmail.com)'s article
> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:42:48 -0400, Chad J wrote:
> >
> > Maybe what you are looking for are the GC.removeRoot or GC.removeRange
> > functions which are available in both Phobos and Tango?
> > http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/docs/cu
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:42:48 -0400, Chad J wrote:
> Simon TRENY wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a class "A" and I'd like to keep a list of all the created instances
>> of this class. To do that, I have a static List!(A) in the A class and, in
>> the constructor, I add each new instance to this list.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Christopher Wright wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Wright wrote:
>>>
>>> grauzone wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Leandro Lucarella
> wrote:
>>
>> This was discussed several times in t
grauzone wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
This was discussed several times in the past. For example:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/learn/weak_references_13301.html
htt
Chris wrote:
Greetings to all !
I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved
it), but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:
"You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employe
Chris wrote:
"Sean Kelly"
Chris wrote:
"You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents
harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related
losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:02 -0400, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
>>> wrote:
>>>
people in the US sued MacDonal
Walter Bright wrote:
BCS wrote:
And it's not just in theology that I find this a problem; take a look
at the (not unbiased) documetery Expelled
(http://www.expelledthemovie.com), people are getting ostrosized for
questionig the party line on evolution. Some of these people aren't
even getting
Georg Wrede wrote:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
I remember one of those idiot "In Search Of..." type shows in the
70's saying that the fit of stones in South America was so tight
you couldn't put a knife blade between them. Therefor
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:02 -0400, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
people in the US sued MacDonald's because their coffee was hot (and
they
even won the case!). other people sued a c
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
> wrote:
>
>> people in the US sued MacDonald's because their coffee was hot (and they
>> even won the case!). other people sued a company since their peanuts
>> contains nuts.
> [...]
"Sean Kelly"
> Chris wrote:
>> "You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
>> subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents
>> harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related
>> losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising out
"Unknown W. Brackets"
> That is a very common clause. The idea, as far as I understand, is that
> if the compiler were to break - and your client were to sue you because of
> this - you can't sue down the chain.
I am familiar with the clause you are talking about (and I basically agree
with it),
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
sources are not the only issue here. Linux is a monolithic kernel. that
means everything in it (including drivers) are one process. You already
know that. usually when you want to find (and fix) a problem, you'd use
a debugger whic
Max Samukha schrieb:
It's possible to statically unroll the foreach's with a template
generating a tuple of consequtive integers (not tested):
template Sequence(size_t count, size_t index = 0)
{
static if (index < count)
alias Tuple!(index, Sequence!(count, index + 1)) Sequence;
..
On 30/03/2009 19:24, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:38:45 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
On 27/03/2009 19:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Interesting anecdote: Our company developed a Linux driver to one piece
of hardware that our largest customer used. We did not release it
On 30/03/2009 04:42, Mike Parker wrote:
No, it gives no freedom to developers at all. Using any GPL code in your
project /forces/ you to open your source. It takes the decision of
whether to open or not out of your hands and puts it in the hands of
whomever created the GPLed product you use. Tha
Georg Wrede wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
But that's not the way people work. People have a vested interest in
their beliefs. If you built your life around X being true, and someone
drops by with evidence that X is false, what's your reaction going to be?
Stone the guy.
D bashing by the C++ c
Hello Jarrett,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:04 PM, BCS wrote:
I'm a cristian
Jesus Crist! ;)
Faith done right is the greatest power for good man will ever see.
Faith done wrong is the greatest power for evil that can ever be.
Please, let's separate the ideas of "general consensus" and "a
Hello Walter,
BCS wrote:
I think the answers is to always be willing to entertain /rational/
debate on anything. The thought being that truth will always stand up
to reason, so unless you *want* to believe something false, you have
nothing to fear in reason
But that's not the way people work
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:38:45 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
On 27/03/2009 19:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Interesting anecdote: Our company developed a Linux driver to one piece
of hardware that our largest customer used. We did not release it under
GPL terms but this is OK legally since th
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:48 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> According to this post:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=86918
>
> OffsetTypeInfo can be enabled when building LDC. Why does it not appear to
> work in current versions of DMD? Is
According to this post:
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=86918
OffsetTypeInfo can be enabled when building LDC. Why does it not appear to
work in current versions of DMD? Is there a good reason why it's apparently
disabled? The rea
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jarrett Billingsley
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Max Samukha
>> wrote:
Also the following doesn't work with dmd, returns 0 for all members:
Base base = new Base;
aut
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
wrote:
>>> getMembers has not been implemented, AFAIK
>>
>> It has in LDC ;)
>>
>
> I think we need D2 support first ;)
I was talking about the RTTI getMembers function :)
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Max Samukha
> wrote:
>>>Also the following doesn't work with dmd, returns 0 for all members:
>>>
>>>Base base = new Base;
>>>auto members = __traits(allMembers, typeof(base));
>>>foreach(m; members)
>>
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Max Samukha
wrote:
>>Also the following doesn't work with dmd, returns 0 for all members:
>>
>>Base base = new Base;
>>auto members = __traits(allMembers, typeof(base));
>>foreach(m; members)
>> writefln(base.classinfo.getMembers(m).length);
>
> getMembers has
Chris wrote:
Greetings to all !
I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved
it), but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:
"You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employe
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:06:09 +0200, Trass3r wrote:
>Shouldn't __traits return Tuples instead of arrays (esp. allMembers) to
>allow sophisticated compile time reflection?
>Currently it seems impossible to do something along the lines of
>
>foreach (member; __traits (allMembers, Class))
>{
> f
Walter Bright wrote:
BCS wrote:
I think the answers is to always be willing to entertain /rational/
debate on anything. The thought being that truth will always stand up
to reason, so unless you *want* to believe something false, you have
nothing to fear in reason
But that's not the way peop
Robert Fraser wrote:
Has anyone been able to get the backtrace hack working with the newest
Tango?
What is the state of backtrace support, anyway? I know the flectioned
plugin is outdated and broken now. I don't suppose someone could
enumerate and link to the others?
That is a very common clause. The idea, as far as I understand, is that
if the compiler were to break - and your client were to sue you because
of this - you can't sue down the chain.
From the same directory, readme.txt:
"The optimizer and code generator sources are
covered under a separate l
Well, I'm not so sure. Every time you invent meta data, someone will
invent a language that goes outside that meta data. It's reality.
Programs would benefit from such an API as well; it could provide basic
runtime information (mangling, dynamic compilation, etc.)
That said, as far as refle
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
I remember one of those idiot "In Search Of..." type shows in the
70's saying that the fit of stones in South America was so tight you
couldn't put a knife blade between them. Therefore, the stone walls
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> Indeed. The European Dark Ages were dominated by views that humans
> were inherently flawed; that everyone was born a sinner; that you were
> predestined to go to either heaven or hell and there was nothing you
> could do to change that.
I believe that bit of doctrine
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Max Samukha
wrote:
>
> The problem with capabilities of humanity is that humans are mortal.
> At least their bodies are. This is the evidence of a fatal flaw in
> humanity that is hard for me to deny.
I meant to reply to this part too.
We also have the abilities
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Max Samukha
wrote:
> What will be
> next? I dunno. It seems like science, technology and rationalism can't
> give me an answer to this fundumental question. Science even can't
> give a proof of God's non-existance. How can I trust it when it comes
> to more importa
Shouldn't __traits return Tuples instead of arrays (esp. allMembers) to
allow sophisticated compile time reflection?
Currently it seems impossible to do something along the lines of
foreach (member; __traits (allMembers, Class))
{
foreach (overload; __traits (getVirtualFunctions, Class, memb
Greetings to all !
I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved
it), but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:
"You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents
Georg Wrede Wrote:
> Seems BSD should be Our Way:
>
> [...] has a downside, the downside is that people, especially lawyers,
> especially corporate bosses look at the GPL and experience fear. Fear
> that all of their corporate secrets, business knowledge, and special
> sauce will suddenly be
Unknown W. Brackets Wrote:
> a standard way to integrate a compiler into an IDE
You meant *compilers*? D1, D2, D3 etc.
Not only IDE will benefit from extensive metadata. Compiler and runtime
reflection will too.
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:27:56 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Joel C. Salomon
>wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Speaking of which (damn ranting and subject changing!) I think the
>>> Medieval Ages were a stain on our history. I read somewhere how at th
dennis luehring wrote:
Walter Bright schrieb:
Inspired by Don Clugston's recent compiler patch.
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/87vqv/signaling_nans_rise_again/
what about Witold Baryluk "Converting FPU exceptions to D" comment on
the codetalk article - seems to be another goo
Robert Fraser wrote:
Robert Fraser wrote:
Has anyone been able to get the backtrace hack working with the newest
Tango?
Thanks,
Robert
... On Windows + DMD 1.041?
In particular, I've narrowed the problem down to CreateProcessW, which
is sending "The parameter is incorrect." This is render
Does that mean I should be holding my breath for a -DIDE switch to
launch an IDE that gets the syntax highlighting right? Heh.
Seriously, I do agree that was a smart choice. I wish its output were a
bit more semantic, but things like that can be fixed. Having correct
parsing is priceless, a
57 matches
Mail list logo
