Ellery Newcomer wrote:
To restate my question, if I'm a parser and I see
Identifier ( Identifier ) ;
which do I interpret it as?
Type ( NewSymbol ) ;
FunctionName ( Argument ) ;
After some incremental parsing iterations you should be able to
gradually resolve dependencies for each expre
Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> I'd be much more worried about these lines:
>
>>> It has not undergone testing
Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
puremagic.
>>> The Software was not designed to operate after December 31, 1999.
OH NO! All our programs will st
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Ellery
Newcomer wrote:
> Wrong. Both are perfectly valid declarations (and did you miss my note?
> the compiler *IS* interpreting the second as a declaration).
> Okay, consider the rule declarator, which is (or should, if the grammar
> wants to correctly reflect wh
Hello Ellery,
This is what allows D to accept C-style (forgot about those, didn't
ya?) declarations, and it's mostly what I'm referring to. Watch:
Yes and I now I even more wish DMD would to :(
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Ellery
> Newcomer wrote:
>> Sorry for not posting this in learn, but I'd also like to hear the
>> Language Designer's input on this one.
>>
>> How does dmd resolve the declaration/expression ambiguity?
>>
>> My first instinct would be to
> I suggest looking at D's scope guard statements, which replace most uses
> of try statements.
While scope guards is absolutely the right solution to resource handling and
transactions, I don't see how to use it for some other common uses of
exceptions where you need a reference to the exceptio
> If it's braces you're concerned with, D doesn't actually require them
> on try/catch/finally like many other languages:
As I said, the braces is just the small obvious benefit. The larger benefit
IMHO is the less obvious shift in how you think about exceptions, but I'm not
sure that argument is
On 23.06.2009 22:05, Brad Roberts wrote:
Ok.. then let's just leave things as they are. One request, would you work out
how to make examining the history of a page work correctly? I never can seem to
get anything other than the most recent change. Admittedly, I haven't tried in
a while. That'
Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:30:36 -0700, Brad Roberts wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly willing to setup mediawiki for us. The responses on the
>> thread I started a while ago ranged from useless side-discussions to
>> luke warm to insulting. So I haven't done anything (that and I've
Justin Calvarese Wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I'm curious whether you were going to set up redirects for the new
> pages as part of your reorganization efforts (e.g., "#REDIRECT
> ComingFrom/BASICVariants").
>
> Here's an example of a redirected page:
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?edit=DocCom
== Quote from Jesse Phillips (jessekphill...@gmail.com)'s article
...
> Personally I don't see much difference from one wiki to another, I
> never try to do anything fancy with them. I should have the
> restructured site up by the end of the week, but it will still need
> more content cleanup.
Jes
hasen wrote:
> Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!
>
> It says right there: don't touch me, I'm dangerous.
>
> I'm talking specifically about this line right here:
>
>> Do not install or distribute the Software if you are not accustomed
>> to using or distri
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:27:31 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:02:37AM -0600, hasen wrote:
Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!
Virtually ALL licenses basically say the same thing. It is just legal CYA
stuff.
From the GPL, for examp
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:02:37AM -0600, hasen wrote:
> Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!
Virtually ALL licenses basically say the same thing. It is just legal CYA
stuff.
>From the GPL, for example:
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Ellery
Newcomer wrote:
> Sorry for not posting this in learn, but I'd also like to hear the
> Language Designer's input on this one.
>
> How does dmd resolve the declaration/expression ambiguity?
>
> My first instinct would be to try the declaration, and if it doesn
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:30:36 -0700, Brad Roberts wrote:
> I'm certainly willing to setup mediawiki for us. The responses on the
> thread I started a while ago ranged from useless side-discussions to
> luke warm to insulting. So I haven't done anything (that and I've been
> on vacation out of tow
version(Windows) void[] read(in char[] name)
140 {
141 alias TypeTuple!(GENERIC_READ,
142 FILE_SHARE_READ, (SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES*).init,
OPEN_EXISTING,
143 FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL | FILE_FLAG_SEQUENTIAL_SCAN,
144 HANDLE.init)
145
On 23.06.2009 13:49, dennis luehring wrote:
151 scope(exit) cenforce(CloseHandle(h), name);
sorry missed that line
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but today I just
happened to look at the text of the license that comes with dmd,
The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone
testing and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate
after December 31, 1
> import tango.io.Stdout;
> void main(){
> int[4] i = [1,2,3,4];
> T(t); // compiler: I think this is an expression *barf* t(i[])(i[]);
> //compiler: I think this is a declaration *barf*
> }
>
> class T{
> public T opCall(int[] i){
> Stdout(i).newline;
> return this
20 matches
Mail list logo
