Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Brad Roberts wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
> Think of it like the "bool" operator overload. bool gives a direct
> way for user defined times to be tested for if statements, etc.
> Similarly, U+ gives a d
Brad Roberts wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Think of it like the "bool" operator overload. bool gives a direct
way for user defined times to be tested for if statements, etc.
Similarly, U+ gives a direct way for user defined types to be
converted to their m
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>> Walter Bright:
>>
>>> Think of it like the "bool" operator overload. bool gives a direct
>>> way for user defined times to be tested for if statements, etc.
>>> Similarly, U+ gives a direct way for user defined types to be
>>> converted to their mos
Don wrote:
Not so. My patch included ^^=, but Walter stripped it out because he
wasn't convinced there were enough use cases for it.
Andrei's definitely in your camp on that one .
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use
it occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
An internet search reveals:
1. symmetry
2. compa
KennyTM~ wrote:
On Dec 7, 09 05:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I am completely underwhelmed by 1-6 and have strong arguments against
each, but "frankly, my dear" I have bigger problems than that. I have
exactly zero valid reasons I could mention in TDPL, and that's my litmus
test. I find the ope
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Think of it like the "bool" operator overload. bool gives a direct
way for user defined times to be tested for if statements, etc.
Similarly, U+ gives a direct way for user defined types to be
converted to their most desired arithmeti
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Think of it like the "bool" operator overload. bool gives a direct
way for user defined times to be tested for if statements, etc.
Similarly, U+ gives a direct way for user defined types to be
converted to their most desired arithmetic type.
I'd like opBool in
On Dec 7, 09 09:11, Jerry Quinn wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from KennyTM~ (kenn...@gmail.com)'s article
No, it will _silently_ break code that uses>>> as unsigned right shift.
Well, we could get around this by making>>> an error for a few releases, and
then
only a
Walter Bright Wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from KennyTM~ (kenn...@gmail.com)'s article
> >> No, it will _silently_ break code that uses >>> as unsigned right shift.
> >
> > Well, we could get around this by making >>> an error for a few releases,
> > and then
> > only after everyone's re
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any good use of unary +?
>>
>> I think it's just good symmetry. It makes a programming language just a
>> little bit more elegant. Plus, you keep the 0.01% of programmers that use
>> it happy.
>>
Walter Bright:
> Think of it like the "bool" operator overload. bool gives a direct way
> for user defined times to be tested for if statements, etc. Similarly,
> U+ gives a direct way for user defined types to be converted to their
> most desired arithmetic type.
I'd like opBool in D, for exa
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use
it occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
An internet search reveals:
1. symmetry
2. compatibility with C and many oth
On 7-12-2009 1:24, bearophile wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> Should we yank operator>>>?
>
> We can change it purpose and add the other one:
> <<< rotate left
rotate right
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
I thought that idea was so crazy that I just went ahead and post it
myself...
Good idea though
On 7-12-2009 0:11, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> D has operator >>> which means "unsigned shift to the right", inherited
> from Java. But it doesn't need it because D has unsigned types, which
> can be used to effect unsigned shift. (Java, lacking unsigned types, had
> no other way around but to def
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use
it occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
An internet search reveals:
1. symmetry
2. compatibility with C and many other languages that use
Hello bearophile,
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Is there any good use of unary +?
In an array of directions I have used -something to mean left and
+something to mean right, to keep their symmetry. This is an usage,
but not a good enough one.
I do that sometimes and I'd like to keep doing it, but
Don:
> It doesn't even work on LDC!
Are you sure? I think they work with LDC.
> You then get problems with user defined types that want to have a rotate.
Having two built-in operators to perform rotations can solve that, but I agree
it may be overkill.
> BTW, if the above intrinsic existed,
On Dec 7, 09 05:02, Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Don:
I think DMD should just do what gcc does: recognize that
(x << 32-n | x>>n) is ror n
(x << n | x>> 32-n) is rol n
where x is int. Ugly, but doesn't require an intrinsic.
Thanks, but no thanks, it's too much ugly and it gets even more ugly
On Dec 7, 09 05:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I am completely underwhelmed by 1-6 and have strong arguments against
each, but "frankly, my dear" I have bigger problems than that. I have
exactly zero valid reasons I could mention in TDPL, and that's my litmus
test. I find the operator utterly use
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
An internet search reveals:
1. symmetry
2. compatibility with C and many other languages that use it
3. used with operator ov
Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +?
I think it's just good symmetry. It makes a programming language just a
little bit more elegant. Plus, you keep the 0.01% of programmers that use
it happy.
What will removing it gain you?
Sancta simpli
Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
3. used with operator overloading to convert a user defined type to
its preferred arithmetic representation (a cast can't know what the
'preferred' type is)
> 5. to coerce default integral promotion rules (again, cast(int) won't
> always produce the same resul
bearophile wrote:
Don:
I think DMD should just do what gcc does: recognize that
(x << 32-n | x>>n) is ror n
(x << n | x>> 32-n) is rol n
where x is int. Ugly, but doesn't require an intrinsic.
Thanks, but no thanks, it's too much ugly and it gets even more ugly if you
need to use that with
KennyTM~ wrote:
On Dec 7, 09 04:30, Don wrote:
KennyTM~ wrote:
On Dec 7, 09 00:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
Andrei
Yes, when you want to port the Boost Spirit parser :o) (
On Dec 7, 09 04:30, Don wrote:
KennyTM~ wrote:
On Dec 7, 09 00:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
Andrei
Yes, when you want to port the Boost Spirit parser :o) (OK that's an
abus
On 12/05/2009 09:28 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 12/05/2009 08:21 PM, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
Is anybody else here experiencing problems with Thunderbird 3 RC? On my
laptop many post that are clearly replies to an existing thread appear
as new top-level posts.
When I first started using Thunder
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
An internet search reveals:
1. symmetry
I think it makes sense for literals. Not for anything else though.
Since + is a no-op
KennyTM~ wrote:
On Dec 7, 09 00:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
Andrei
Yes, when you want to port the Boost Spirit parser :o) (OK that's an
abuse.)
Well the unary + can help
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
An internet search reveals:
1. symmetry
2. compatibility with C and many other languages that use it
3. used with operator overloading to convert a
Don:
> I think DMD should just do what gcc does: recognize that
> (x << 32-n | x>>n) is ror n
> (x << n | x>> 32-n) is rol n
> where x is int. Ugly, but doesn't require an intrinsic.
Thanks, but no thanks, it's too much ugly and it gets even more ugly if you
need to use that with ulongs or usho
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/727516/what-does-the-unary-plus-operator-do
KennyTM~ wrote:
On Dec 7, 09 03:41, Don wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Should we yank operator>>>?
We can change it purpose and add the other one:
<<< rotate left
rotate right
Bye,
bearophile
This is a good idea, a
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from KennyTM~ (kenn...@gmail.com)'s article
No, it will _silently_ break code that uses >>> as unsigned right shift.
Well, we could get around this by making >>> an error for a few releases, and
then
only after everyone's removed their >>>s that mean unsigned shift, we
dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from KennyTM~ (kenn...@gmail.com)'s article
>> No, it will _silently_ break code that uses >>> as unsigned right shift.
>
> Well, we could get around this by making >>> an error for a few releases, and
> then
> only after everyone's removed their >>>s that mean unsigned
Don wrote:
It's tied to a twos-complement
representation, and not to mathematics.
That's true, and D explicitly is tied to twos-complement integers.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
D has operator >>> which means "unsigned shift to the right", inherited
from Java. But it doesn't need it because D has unsigned types, which
can be used to effect unsigned shift. (Java, lacking unsigned types, had
no other way around but to define a new operator.)
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:00:42 +0300, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from KennyTM~ (kenn...@gmail.com)'s article
On Dec 7, 09 01:24, bearophile wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> Should we yank operator>>>?
>
> We can change it purpose and add the other one:
> <<< rotate left
rotate right
>
> Bye,
On Dec 7, 09 03:41, Don wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Should we yank operator>>>?
We can change it purpose and add the other one:
<<< rotate left
rotate right
Bye,
bearophile
This is a good idea, although rotate ma
== Quote from KennyTM~ (kenn...@gmail.com)'s article
> On Dec 7, 09 01:24, bearophile wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu:
> >> Should we yank operator>>>?
> >
> > We can change it purpose and add the other one:
> > <<< rotate left
> rotate right
> >
> > Bye,
> > bearophile
> No, it will _silently
On Dec 7, 09 00:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
Andrei
Yes, when you want to port the Boost Spirit parser :o) (OK that's an abuse.)
Well the unary + can help to emphasize "it's
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Should we yank operator>>>?
We can change it purpose and add the other one:
<<< rotate left
rotate right
Bye,
bearophile
This is a good idea, although rotate may be seldom enough used not to w
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Is there any good use of unary +?
I think it's just good symmetry. It makes a programming language just a
little bit more elegant. Plus, you keep the 0.01% of programmers that use
it happy.
What will removing it gain you?
--
Michiel Helvensteijn
On Dec 7, 09 01:24, bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Should we yank operator>>>?
We can change it purpose and add the other one:
<<< rotate left
rotate right
Bye,
bearophile
No, it will _silently_ break code that uses >>> as unsigned right shift.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
Andrei
In theory, it could be used in floating point for emphasizing that 0.0
is +0.0 and not -0.0. But that may not be what you mean.
Outside of
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
D has operator >>> which means "unsigned shift to the right", inherited
from Java. But it doesn't need it because D has unsigned types, which
can be used to effect unsigned shift. (Java, lacking unsigned types, had
no other way around but to define a new operator.)
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
D has operator >>> which means "unsigned shift to the right", inherited
from Java. But it doesn't need it because D has unsigned types, which
can be used to effect unsigned shift. (Java, lacking unsigned t
bearophile wrote:
dsimcha:
This is a good idea, although rotate may be seldom enough used not to warrant
its
own (possibly overloadable) operator.
Overloadable rotate operators can be used to rotate items inside an
user-defined array, in my dlibs I have the templated functions rotateLeft and
On 2009-12-06 12:36:49 -0500, dsimcha said:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Should we yank operator>>>?
We can change it purpose and add the other one:
<<< rotate left
rotate right
Bye,
bearophile
This is a good idea, although rotate may
On 2009-12-06 13:07:29 -0500, "Adam D. Ruppe" said:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:36:49PM +, dsimcha wrote:
In a close to the metal language, there needs to be a straightforward,
efficient
way to access it.
You could always do what I did in my D SHA implementations:
uint something = whate
On 2009-12-06 10:44:17 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
Tim Matthews wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Should we sack lazy? I'd like it to have a reasonable replacement.
Ideas are welcome!
Andrei
According to the doc page:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lazy-evaluation.html
you (and/o
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> Is there any good use of unary +?
In an array of directions I have used -something to mean left and +something to
mean right, to keep their symmetry. This is an usage, but not a good enough one.
Bye,
bearophile
dsimcha:
> This is a good idea, although rotate may be seldom enough used not to warrant
> its
> own (possibly overloadable) operator.
Overloadable rotate operators can be used to rotate items inside an
user-defined array, in my dlibs I have the templated functions rotateLeft and
rotateRight, a
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:36:49PM +, dsimcha wrote:
> In a close to the metal language, there needs to be a straightforward,
> efficient
> way to access it.
You could always do what I did in my D SHA implementations:
uint something = whatever;
asm { rol something, 5; }
something += stuff;
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
> > Should we yank operator>>>?
> We can change it purpose and add the other one:
> <<< rotate left
> >>> rotate right
> Bye,
> bearophile
This is a good idea, although rotate may be seldom enough used not to warr
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> D has operator >>> which means "unsigned shift to the right", inherited
> from Java. But it doesn't need it because D has unsigned types, which
> can be used to effect unsigned shift. (Java, lacking unsigned types, had
>
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> Should we yank operator>>>?
We can change it purpose and add the other one:
<<< rotate left
>>> rotate right
Bye,
bearophile
On 12/06/2009 10:11 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
D has operator >>> which means "unsigned shift to the right", inherited
from Java. But it doesn't need it because D has unsigned types, which
can be used to effect unsigned shift. (Java, lacking unsigned types, had
no other way around but to defi
Is there any good use of unary +? As an aside, Perl programs do use it
occasionally for syntactic disambiguation :o).
Andrei
D has operator >>> which means "unsigned shift to the right", inherited
from Java. But it doesn't need it because D has unsigned types, which
can be used to effect unsigned shift. (Java, lacking unsigned types, had
no other way around but to define a new operator.)
Should we yank operator>>>?
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 12/05/2009 11:17 PM, Don wrote:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 12/05/2009 09:20 PM, Don wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I just noticed in D1 that the values for the cases in a switch must be
known at compile-time (btw, the docs don't seem somewhat vague on
that). Is this al
Tim Matthews wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Should we sack lazy? I'd like it to have a reasonable replacement.
Ideas are welcome!
Andrei
According to the doc page:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lazy-evaluation.html
you (and/or Tomasz Stachowiak) were the one who suggested it in the
f
On 12/05/2009 11:17 PM, Don wrote:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 12/05/2009 09:20 PM, Don wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I just noticed in D1 that the values for the cases in a switch must be
known at compile-time (btw, the docs don't seem somewhat vague on
that). Is this also true in D2? If so, I
On 6-12-2009 19:45, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> With rc1 I had this problem, but rc2 has (touch wood) seemed to have
> ironed out the kinks.
rc2! yeey!
"Don" wrote in message
news:hffi5b$2fr...@digitalmars.com...
> BCS wrote:
>>
>>
>>
> Troll.
AJ
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Should we sack lazy? I'd like it to have a reasonable replacement. Ideas
> are welcome!
Once I had a bug, it's like:
foo(step1());
step2();
I forget foo() uses lazy parameter, so step1 never get called.
Now I prefer to use delegate, I just hope this can compile
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> Should we sack lazy? I'd like it to have a reasonable replacement. Ideas
> are welcome!
I am not yet able to suggest you a replacement.
This is a small post I have recently read about limits and problems of laziness
in Scala, that looks similar to laziness in D:
http://pc
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Should we sack lazy? I'd like it to have a reasonable replacement. Ideas
are welcome!
Andrei
I think they are broken as they are not really lazy, but just convenient
syntax for passing delegates.
In my mind, a lazy parameter should evaluate just once, and save that
On 06/12/09 15:21, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
Is anybody else here experiencing problems with Thunderbird 3 RC? On my
laptop many post that are clearly replies to an existing thread appear
as new top-level posts.
When I first started using Thunderbird 3 beta this happened in my IMAP
folder as well,
On 06/12/2009 03:21, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
Is anybody else here experiencing problems with Thunderbird 3 RC? On my
laptop many post that are clearly replies to an existing thread appear
as new top-level posts.
Yeah, exactly the same problem. 2.x worked fine.
also the tabbed view drives me cr
On 6-12-2009 11:24, Walter Bright wrote:
> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>> Is anybody else here experiencing problems with Thunderbird 3 RC?
>
> I use thunderbird 2.0.0.23 and am not having a problem here.
It was OK in 2.0 here too, so I thought it might have something to do
with 3.0
71 matches
Mail list logo
