Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 15:43 me escribiste:
octal(755)?
What's the base-10 identity of that?
decimal(493) or decimal(755)?
base-16 etc.
Fine. Make it octal!"755" if you prefer.
The point is just that you can write a function that will convert a
number
BCS wrote:
Hello Jesse,
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:27:47 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Thanks! Question - is there a way to fetch the current Throwable from
within a finally clause?
Andrei
I'm pretty sure you can't since finally isn't passed an exception. I
also don't see anything in my qu
Tim Matthews, el 21 de noviembre a las 18:10 me escribiste:
> Chad J wrote:
> >http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3536
> >
> >So Walter, with this you can keep your beloved fall-through.
> >Now can the rest of us be spared the nasty fall-through bugs, please
> >please please??
> >
> >Als
On 21-11-2009 9:50, Bill Baxter wrote:
That's going to cause a little confusion. Mind if we call you Bruce?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA
Thanks for that :) hadn't seen it earlier.
L.
Chad J wrote:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3536
So Walter, with this you can keep your beloved fall-through.
Now can the rest of us be spared the nasty fall-through bugs, please
please please??
Also, about assert(0)... I'd be happy to change what I did if Walter and
associates
dsimcha wrote:
I'm thinking about what the best way might be to model ranges in an
OO/inheritance style for collections/containers, and needless to say it's
pretty complicated and virtually impossible to model well. (As an aside, this
is why I like duck typing, be it compile time or traditional,
Denis Koroskin wrote:
type-safe manner anymore (well, one could create a set of trampolines
for each of set of types involved in a call, but I don't think it's
reasonable or even possible; I'll look into it, too, though). That's why
Yes, it is possible. You'll have to pass the method as alias
dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Rainer Deyke (rain...@eldwood.com)'s article
>> Yes, but a moving GC needs to be 100% precise, not 99.9%.
>
> Not if you allow pinning, which we'd need anyhow for untyped, conservatively
> scanned memory blocks.
If you allow pinning then you no longer get the fu
I am working on a prototype of PRC library and it involves a wide range of
techniques that I also implement. I'd like to share my code,
implementation details and issues I come across. I will split my report
into a few posts. This one is mostly an introduction.
RPC is a concept that allows
Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 17:50 me escribiste:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 17:18 me escribiste:
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Leandro Lucarella
> >> wrote:
> >> > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 1
I'm thinking about what the best way might be to model ranges in an
OO/inheritance style for collections/containers, and needless to say it's
pretty complicated and virtually impossible to model well. (As an aside, this
is why I like duck typing, be it compile time or traditional, so much.)
At th
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 17:18 me escribiste:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Leandro Lucarella
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Bill Baxter,
Bill Baxter Wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 17:18 me escribiste:
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Leandro Lucarella
> >> wrote:
> >> > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 14:10 me escribiste:
> >> >> On Fri, Nov
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> > Walter Bright wrote:
>> >> BCS wrote:
>> >>> Even if you have network parallelism, CPU loads still costs money.
>> >>> Many server farms are not space limited but power limited. The
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3536
So Walter, with this you can keep your beloved fall-through.
Now can the rest of us be spared the nasty fall-through bugs, please
please please??
Also, about assert(0)... I'd be happy to change what I did if Walter and
associates feel that adding
Walter Bright Wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> >> BCS wrote:
> >>> Even if you have network parallelism, CPU loads still costs money.
> >>> Many server farms are not space limited but power limited. They can't
> >>> get enough power out of the power company to run m
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 17:18 me escribiste:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 14:10 me escribiste:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe
Bill Baxter Wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >
> >> Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> >> > Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> >> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or
> >> >> even
> >> >> better, a general any-po
Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 17:18 me escribiste:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 14:10 me escribiste:
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 04:49:52PM -0500, Ni
Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 15:43 me escribiste:
> > octal(755)?
> >
> > What's the base-10 identity of that?
> >
> > decimal(493) or decimal(755)?
> >
> > base-16 etc.
>
> Fine. Make it octal!"755" if you prefer.
> The point is just that you can write a function that will convert a
> n
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
>> Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> > Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> >> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or
>> >> even
>> >> better, a general any-positive-inter-base syntax. But until
Justin Johansson, el 21 de noviembre a las 09:42 me escribiste:
> >It would definitely be a problem if octal literals disappeared
> >from the language, even if only for a short while. They are pretty
> >much the only sensible way to specify POSIX file permissions.
> >
> > import core.sys.posix.sys
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
BCS wrote:
Even if you have network parallelism, CPU loads still costs money.
Many server farms are not space limited but power limited. They
can't get enough power out of the power company to run more servers.
(And take a
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> > Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or
> >> even
> >> better, a general any-positive-inter-base syntax. But until that finally
> >> happens, I don't want "010 == 8" preserved. An
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 14:10 me escribiste:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 04:49:52PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> >> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great t
Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 14:10 me escribiste:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 04:49:52PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or
> >> even
> >> better, a general a
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> "Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
>>> news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D,
Travis Boucher, el 20 de noviembre a las 16:45 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >dsimcha, el 20 de noviembre a las 16:24 me escribiste:
> Right, but they can still be the target of false pointers. In this case,
> false
> pointers keep each instance of foo[] alive, leading t
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Right, but if you do define it (in order to do something extra upon
initialization -- validate inputs or what have you) then it no longer
works at compile time.
Right, but the static initialization the
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
BCS wrote:
Even if you have network parallelism, CPU loads still costs money.
Many server farms are not space limited but power limited. They can't
get enough power out of the power company to run more servers. (And
take a guess at what there po
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Here's one thing I just found:
struct constructors don't work at compile-time:
struct Struct
{
this(int _n, float _x) {
n = _n; x = _x;
}
int n;
float x;
}
enum A = Struct(1,2);
//
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
initializers.
IMO this cleanup and polish is important
Walter Bright wrote:
BCS wrote:
Even if you have network parallelism, CPU loads still costs money.
Many server farms are not space limited but power limited. They can't
get enough power out of the power company to run more servers. (And
take a guess at what there power bills cost!)
I've ofte
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Walter Bright
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in favor of
>>> ranges.
>>>
>>
>> I think the opApply should take precedence.
>> The o
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in favor of
ranges.
I think the opApply should take precedence.
The only reason to define opApply is because foreach uses it.
Ranges on the other hand are us
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Right, but if you do define it (in order to do something extra upon
>> initialization -- validate inputs or what have you) then it no longer
>> works at compile time.
>
> Right, but the static initialization then shou
Bill Baxter wrote:
We now have struct constructors that do basically the same thing as a
static opCall.
Non-static opCall should still be ok, for implementing functors, but I
think having static opCall is just too confusing given struct literals
/ struct constructors.
Right now
struct S;
S(1,2)
Bill Baxter wrote:
Right, but if you do define it (in order to do something extra upon
initialization -- validate inputs or what have you) then it no longer
works at compile time.
Right, but the static initialization then shouldn't work, either.
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct initializers.
IMO this cleanup and polish is important and all successful languages do
such cleanup for major releases (Python and Ruby come to mind). I'
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
>
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> "Yig
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
>
> And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in favor of
> ranges.
>
I think the opApply should take precedence.
The only reason to define opApply is because foreach uses it.
Ranges on the other hand are useful in other si
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
Based on recent discussions on the NG a
We now have struct constructors that do basically the same thing as a
static opCall.
Non-static opCall should still be ok, for implementing functors, but I
think having static opCall is just too confusing given struct literals
/ struct constructors.
Right now
struct S;
S(1,2) ;
could be 1) a stati
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
dsimcha, el 20 de noviembre a las 16:24 me escribiste:
Right, but they can still be the target of false pointers. In this case, false
pointers keep each instance of foo[] alive, leading to severe memory leaks.
But the issue is more of a GC implementation issue then a l
BCS wrote:
With the pump shut off, you have a few seconds of fuel left in the
carb. With no oil pressure, your engine is going to seize anyway.
In a few minutes yes (and it will still run for some time after it's
damaged beyond repair), more than long enough off get off the road. I'd
put a bi
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Based on recent disc
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in favor
of ranges.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Here's one thing I just found:
>> struct constructors don't work at compile-time:
>>
>> struct Struct
>> {
>> this(int _n, float _x) {
>> n = _n; x = _x;
>> }
>> int n;
>> float x;
>> }
>>
>> enum A
Bill Baxter wrote:
Here's one thing I just found:
struct constructors don't work at compile-time:
struct Struct
{
this(int _n, float _x) {
n = _n; x = _x;
}
int n;
float x;
}
enum A = Struct(1,2);
// Error: cannot evaluate ((Struct __ctmp1;
// ) , __ctmp1).this(1,2F) at
Yigal Chripun wrote:
what about foreach_reverse ?
No love for foreach_reverse?
Justin Johansson wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
It would definitely be a problem if octal literals disappeared from
the language, even if only for a short while. They are pretty much the
only sensible way to specify POSIX file permissions.
import core.sys.posix.sys.stat;
...
chmod("p
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> "Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
>> news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
>>> deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
initializers.
IMO this cleanup and polish is impor
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
initializers.
IMO this cleanup and polish is important and all successful lang
Stewart Gordon wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
I agree. opDollar is not particularly fitting to D language operator
concept. opLength/opSize would fit better.
Why I believe opLength and opSize are also wrong names:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/Re_opDollar_12939.html
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
> news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
>> Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
>> deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
>> initializers.
>>
>> IMO this cleanup and polish is important and all
BCS wrote:
Even if you have network parallelism, CPU loads still costs money. Many
server farms are not space limited but power limited. They can't get
enough power out of the power company to run more servers. (And take a
guess at what there power bills cost!)
I've often wondered why the ser
aarti_pl wrote:
I agree. opDollar is not particularly fitting to D language operator
concept. opLength/opSize would fit better.
Why I believe opLength and opSize are also wrong names:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/Re_opDollar_12939.html
http://d.puremagic.com/i
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 04:49:52PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or even
better, a general any-positive-inter-base syntax.
Both D and DMC accept 0b
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
initializers.
IMO this cleanup and polish is important and all successful lang
On 20/11/2009 23:49, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
initializers.
IMO this cleanup and polish is important and
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM, BCS wrote:
> Hello Travis,
>
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Today that reality is very visible already from certain spots. I've
>>> recently switched fields from machine learning/nlp research to
>>> web/industry. Although the fields are apparently very differ
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 04:49:52PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or even
>> better, a general any-positive-inter-base syntax.
>
> Both D and DMC accept 0b as a binary
Hello Travis,
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Today that reality is very visible already from certain spots. I've
recently switched fields from machine learning/nlp research to
web/industry. Although the fields are apparently very different, they
have a lot in common, along with the simple adage th
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 04:49:52PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or even
> better, a general any-positive-inter-base syntax.
Both D and DMC accept 0b as a binary literal. If 0x is hex, it seems
logical that octal should be
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:he6sqe$1dq...@digitalmars.com...
> Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
> deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct
> initializers.
>
> IMO this cleanup and polish is important and all successful languages do
> such
Hello Walter,
BCS wrote:
(On my car, I installed an oil pressure switch that shuts off the
electric fuel pump if the pressure drops.
It might not translate to CS but there are good reasons that such a
device doesn't come standard on cars; the first time one killed a car
in rush hour traffic
Yigal Chripun wrote:
> Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
> deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct initializers.
>
> IMO this cleanup and polish is important and all successful languages do
> such cleanup for major releases (Python and Ruby come to min
Travis Boucher wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 19 de noviembre a las 23:53 me escribiste:
It's not difficult to fix these compiler problems, but I'm just
not sure if it's worth implementing. Maybe they should just be
dropped? (The { field: value } style anyway).
Funny, I've b
Don wrote:
To quote bugzilla 143: 'package' does not work at all
But even if worked as advertised, it'd still be broken.
Although it's a really useful concept that works great in Java, the
existing 'package' doesn't fit with D's directory-based module system.
As I see it, the problem is that,
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 20 de noviembre a las 10:42 me escribiste:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> >Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>Would love to trim the book as well. My finger is on the Del
> >>button. Just say a word.
> >
> >Unless someone comes up with "I really need field names", dump 'em
> >(but sav
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Yigal Chripun wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Yigal Chripun
>> wrote:
>>
>>> what about foreach_reverse ?
>>>
>>
>> What about starting a different thread?
>
> Sorry.
> I assumed we were discussing removals from D and therefore
Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct initializers.
IMO this cleanup and polish is important and all successful languages do
such cleanup for major releases (Python and Ruby come to mind). I'm glad
to see that D
dsimcha, el 20 de noviembre a las 16:24 me escribiste:
> > > Right, but they can still be the target of false pointers. In this case,
> > > false
> > > pointers keep each instance of foo[] alive, leading to severe memory
> > > leaks.
> > But the issue is more of a GC implementation issue then a
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Yigal Chripun wrote:
what about foreach_reverse ?
What about starting a different thread?
Sorry.
I assumed we were discussing removals from D and therefore mentioned
foreach_reverse as a prime candidate. I'll start a new thread.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
We're entering the finale of D2 and I want to keep a short list of
things that must be done and integrated in the release. It is clearly
understood by all of us that there are many things that could and
probably should be done.
What do you mean by finale, exactly?
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Would love to trim the book as well. My finger is on the Del button.
Just say a word.
Unless someone comes up with "I really need field names", dump 'em
(but save a backup of your work first!).
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Yigal Chripun wrote:
> what about foreach_reverse ?
>
What about starting a different thread?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Walter Bright
> wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) Struct literals don't work if you have an opCall for your struct.
>>> (Maybe that's not such a big deal now that structs have
>>> constructors? I ha
== Quote from Yigal Chripun (yigal...@gmail.com)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> >> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>> Would love to trim the book as well. My finger is on the Del button.
> >>> Just say a word.
> >>
> >> Unless someone comes up with "I really need fi
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Would love to trim the book as well. My finger is on the Del button.
Just say a word.
Unless someone comes up with "I really need field names", dump 'em
(but save a backup of your work first!).
My RIP emails to you
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Don wrote:
> Now that we have struct literals, the old C-style struct initializers don't
> seem to be necessary.
> The variations with named initializers are not really implemented -- the
> example in the spec doesn't work, and most uses of them cause compiler
> se
== Quote from Rainer Deyke (rain...@eldwood.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Denis Koroskin (2kor...@gmail.com)'s article
> > It would be negligible. The idea is that unions of reference and
> > non-reference
> > types are such a corner case that they could be handled conservativ
dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Denis Koroskin (2kor...@gmail.com)'s article
> It would be negligible. The idea is that unions of reference and
> non-reference
> types are such a corner case that they could be handled conservatively as a
> special case, and then it's possible, at least in principl
On Nov 21, 09 00:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
Now that we have struct literals, the old C-style struct initializers
don't seem to be necessary.
The variations with named initializers are not really implemented --
the example in the spec doesn't work, and most u
BCS wrote:
(On my car, I installed an oil pressure switch that shuts off the
electric fuel pump if the pressure drops.
It might not translate to CS but there are good reasons that such a
device doesn't come standard on cars; the first time one killed a car in
rush hour traffic and set off a 50
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> 1) Struct literals don't work if you have an opCall for your struct.
>> (Maybe that's not such a big deal now that structs have
>> constructors? I haven't had a chance to look into struct constructors
>> yet...)
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> >> dsimcha wrote:
> >>> Yes, and similarly, when I write code to do some complicated processing
> >>> of gene
> >>> expression data or DNA se
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Would love to trim the book as well. My finger is on the Del button.
Just say a word.
Unless someone comes up with "I really need field names", dump 'em (but
save a backup of your work first!).
My RIP emails to you (as with typedef) are my bac
Bill Baxter wrote:
1) Struct literals don't work if you have an opCall for your struct.
(Maybe that's not such a big deal now that structs have
constructors? I haven't had a chance to look into struct constructors
yet...)
Worst case, you can still construct them dynamically.
2) The field
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Would love to trim the book as well. My finger is on the Del button.
Just say a word.
Unless someone comes up with "I really need field names", dump 'em (but
save a backup of your work first!).
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
Yes, and similarly, when I write code to do some complicated processing of gene
expression data or DNA sequences, and it uses RAM measured in gigabytes, I go to
similar lengths to avoid GC for simil
Hello Jesse,
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:27:47 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Thanks! Question - is there a way to fetch the current Throwable from
within a finally clause?
Andrei
I'm pretty sure you can't since finally isn't passed an exception. I
also don't see anything in my quick search.
Hello Walter,
BCS wrote:
For some systems, once you hit a seg-v, things can't get any worse
Oh, yes they can!
For some cases they can, for others they can't.
You could now be executing a virus. *Anything* the
software is connected to can now do anything wrong or malicious.
(On my car,
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Kyle wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
>>> 6. There must be many things I forgot to mention, or that cause grief to
>>> many of us. Please add to/comment on this list.
>>
>> Uniform function call syntax.
>>
>
> It's in the book. I'm adding this message as a r
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:52:09 +0300, Don wrote:
To quote bugzilla 143: 'package' does not work at all
But even if worked as advertised, it'd still be broken.
Although it's a really useful concept that works great in Java, the
existing 'package' doesn't fit with D's directory-based module sys
"bearophile" wrote in message
news:he61b9$2i9...@digitalmars.com...
Walter Bright:
The generated code should be identical. Please file a bugzilla!
The last times I have shown a benchmark here, people have answered me that
the dmd backend is primitive/old, so they have implicitly told me to
To quote bugzilla 143: 'package' does not work at all
But even if worked as advertised, it'd still be broken.
Although it's a really useful concept that works great in Java, the
existing 'package' doesn't fit with D's directory-based module system.
As I see it, the problem is that, given:
mod
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Don wrote:
> Now that we have struct literals, the old C-style struct initializers don't
> seem to be necessary.
> The variations with named initializers are not really implemented -- the
> example in the spec doesn't work, and most uses of them cause compiler
> se
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
