I would also tend to agree that this set of rules is a bit arbitrary
and seems a bit like some overfitted classifier in pattern recognition
(although there were worse sets or rules in that regard).
Jugding from the numerous failed, awkward or too specific attempts to
define such a set of rules, m
Hi!
I haven't been using D for a long long long time unfortunately. Recently
I decided to give it a try again, downloaded D2.040, setup descent
(btw. descent looks great) and ddbg.
After some time I managed to get my old program compiling again and it
works great. That is... it works great
bearophile Wrote:
> I think this comment contains a grain of truth: languages that start simple
> can gain an user base, and then they can slowly grow more complex:
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b74jv/scala_books_in_general_are_just_not_selling_well/
>
> The const/nothrow/pur
Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I would also tend to agree that this set of rules is a bit arbitrary
and seems a bit like some overfitted classifier in pattern recognition
(although there were worse sets or rules in that regard).
Almost everyone has missed the point. We are OUT OF TIME. This is just
damag
Robert Clipsham, el 26 de febrero a las 22:32 me escribiste:
> On 26/02/10 21:48, Don wrote:
> >I genuinely thought @pure, @nothrow was a no-brainer.
> >
> >I really thought the explanation that "we made all attibutes use the @
> >form, except those where it was prevented by historical precedent" w
On 28/02/10 15:40, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I'm not against this, I'm against weird ad-hoc rules to justify it =)
[A few years down the road, D2 is more popular, more code is becoming
available for it, more programs are being written in it]
Novice: There's just one thing I don't understand,
Before filing a possible bug report I prefer to ask here, because my ideas are
often wrong.
This is a small D2 program:
nothrow void foo() {
// auto a = new int[5]; // not allowed here
int[int] aa;
for (int i; i < 100_000_000; i++)
aa[i] = i;
}
void main() {
foo();
}
Insi
bearophile Wrote:
> Before filing a possible bug report I prefer to ask here, because my ideas
> are often wrong.
> This is a small D2 program:
>
> nothrow void foo() {
> // auto a = new int[5]; // not allowed here
> int[int] aa;
> for (int i; i < 100_000_000; i++)
> aa[i] =
Daniel Murphy:
> Allocations are allowed inside nothrow functions. If I remember correctly,
> the reasons are that disallowing them would limit usefulness, and that
> OutOfMemoryError is not generally recoverable.<
OK. Then can you tell me why the following program produces:
test2.d(1): Error:
I strongly disagree: Having two versions of the language can only lead
to confusion.
If there is a need for a "simplified" D, this should be achieved by
defining D in several levels, not just by branching off the project. The
simplified D should still evolve alongside with full D and kept in s
Since printf and writeln versions both exhibit the same problem, I
suspect the problem is elsewhere in your program.
bearophile wrote:
Daniel Murphy:
Allocations are allowed inside nothrow functions. If I remember correctly, the
reasons are that disallowing them would limit usefulness, and that
OutOfMemoryError is not generally recoverable.<
OK. Then can you tell me why the following program produces:
tes
On 2010-02-28 10:06:39 -0500, Don said:
Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I would also tend to agree that this set of rules is a bit arbitrary
and seems a bit like some overfitted classifier in pattern recognition
(although there were worse sets or rules in that regard).
Almost everyone has missed the poi
Don wrote:
> Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> I would also tend to agree that this set of rules is a bit arbitrary
>> and seems a bit like some overfitted classifier in pattern recognition
>> (although there were worse sets or rules in that regard).
>
> Almost everyone has missed the point. We are OUT OF T
Don:
> That's clearly a bug.
Thank you for your answer Don.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3864
(In future I will even start trying to fix them.)
Bye,
bearophile
On 02/28/2010 10:01 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
If you want a rationale, I think it'd be fine to say that attributes are
things you can ignore because they only have a restrictive effect on the
semantics (the definition you said you invented). Then mention there is
an exception: @property.
Sorry i
On 2010-02-28 18:42:50 -0500, Pelle Månsson said:
On 02/28/2010 10:01 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
If you want a rationale, I think it'd be fine to say that attributes are
things you can ignore because they only have a restrictive effect on the
semantics (the definition you said you invented). The
On 03/01/2010 01:29 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-02-28 18:42:50 -0500, Pelle Månsson said:
Sorry if I go on and miss the point some more, but I dislike this a
lot. That's imposing restrictions on future @attributes. Like, for
example, @memoized. Or something like that. @traced, maybe.
If
Hi
This is the monthly status for the unofficial d wish list:
http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/
I am closing this wish list.
New requests should be posted to bugzilla on http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
It would be a great help,
if you could help move some of the wish list items
On 2010-02-28 19:46:29 -0500, Pelle Månsson said:
What about @curried? It (potentially) changes the way the function is
called, yet looks quite good as an @attribute.
I'm not sure I understand how you expect a @curried attribute to be
used. How would you call a @curried function?
--
Michel
Bane wrote:
On the other hand, D2 carries more complexity than D1, more power at
a greater risk of potentially more dangerous programs (due to
programmers fault). As Language D homepage states, D aims to balance
simplicity and power. Seems to me D1 leans to first, while D2 to
second. I see place
Sean Kelly Wrote:
> In article , Mathias says...
> >
> >"Note: all D users agree that by downloading and using D, or reading the D
> >specs, they will explicitly identify any claims to intellectual property
> >rights
> >with a copyright or patent notice in any posted or emailed feedback sent to
>
4tuu4k...@sneakemail.com Wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> This is the monthly status for the unofficial d wish list:
> http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/
>
> I am closing this wish list.
> New requests should be posted to bugzilla on http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
>
> It would be a great help,
23 matches
Mail list logo
