Hello Walter,
BCS wrote:
Currently the described code is legal, unsafe (it can result in
invalid pointers) and has undefined semantics (it can result in
unpredictable, implementation defined results). What I think
bearophile wants is for only the last to be changed, that is; you can
still do t
On 2010-04-17 13:38:18 -0400, GG said:
A clarification on the website could be useful and encourage the enterprises to
program in D.
A clarification as a small preamble to the license itself would be even
better (if possible).
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
On 2010-04-17 13:35:16 -0400, Walter Bright said:
BCS wrote:
Currently the described code is legal, unsafe (it can result in invalid
pointers) and has undefined semantics (it can result in unpredictable,
implementation defined results). What I think bearophile wants is for
only the last to b
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> (Hi Jerry! Glad to see you're ramping up participation lately.) Yes,
> that's a bug. There are many other bugs related to jumps, including in
> switch statements.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4101
cheers,
Jerry
Graham Fawcett Wrote:
> Okay. Well, I hope bitbucket will be public enough for you, but somehow I
> doubt it. :)
>
You can find it here:
freepository.com
login: demo-lite
password: demo
repository: demo
file: /test/date2.d
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> (Hi Jerry! Glad to see you're ramping up participation lately.) Yes,
> that's a bug. There are many other bugs related to jumps, including in
> switch statements.
>
That's why we need new properly scoped switch syntax, lol.
Graham Fawcett Wrote:
> Okay. Well, I hope bitbucket will be public enough for you, but somehow I
> doubt it. :)
>
Do you know something like pastebin?
Graham Fawcett Wrote:
> > No, my code is on my hdd, never heard about publically accessible
> > repositories, sf is private, git was meant to be more public, though
> > it's too linux-centric, I'll look into bitbucket.
>
> Okay. Well, I hope bitbucket will be public enough for you, but somehow I
On 04/17/2010 11:11 AM, Jerry Quinn wrote:
In the spec it says that it's illegal to skip an initialization using goto.
Unless I'm mistaken, the code below does that for b, s, and c. However, it
compiles without complaint.
So, should the compiler be complaining, or is the text about goto real
== Quote from Lutger (lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com)'s article
> Apparently, but since the matter comes up so often, why not put a
> clarification on the website in addition to license. Something like the last
> two sentences of Adam D. Ruppe's post.
I'm agree with this !
Maybe some people was like
BCS wrote:
Currently the described code is legal, unsafe (it can result in invalid
pointers) and has undefined semantics (it can result in unpredictable,
implementation defined results). What I think bearophile wants is for
only the last to be changed, that is; you can still do things that
res
In the spec it says that it's illegal to skip an initialization using goto.
Unless I'm mistaken, the code below does that for b, s, and c. However, it
compiles without complaint.
So, should the compiler be complaining, or is the text about goto really saying
that behavior is undefined. Obvio
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:33:40 -0400, Kagamin wrote:
> Graham Fawcett Wrote:
>
>> > Erm, no. Never heard about public repositories.
>>
>> Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant, is your code under
>> version control, and is the repository publically accessible: for
>> example, in a sourcefo
Hello Walter,
bearophile wrote:
I'm confused. It appears you want to write unsafe code and yet have it
be guaranteed safe.
Currently the described code is legal, unsafe (it can result in invalid pointers)
and has undefined semantics (it can result in unpredictable, implementation
defined re
Graham Fawcett Wrote:
> > Erm, no. Never heard about public repositories.
>
> Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant, is your code under version
> control, and is the repository publically accessible: for example, in a
> sourceforge, github, or bitbucket site?
>
No, my code is on my hdd
bearophile wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad:
The effect of @safe would be to forbid code that leads to undefined
behaviour, not make it well-defined.
Right, but that's not the solution I was looking for, and it's not
going to solve the problems inherited from C. Because if people that
use D want to
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 04/16/2010 11:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
>>> Looks great, thanks Jerome!
>>>
>>> Now, how about that case in which some or all of the ranges
>>> involved include negative values?
>>
>> I solved already signed values in terms o
Graham Fawcett wrote:
> It's in part a leading question. I'm new to this list, and am trying to
> get a sense of how third-party-library development tends to happen in the
> D community.
>
Well, a lot of it is on http://dsource.org
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http
BCS wrote:
> Hello GG,
>
>> Thanks Adam D. Ruppe !
>> It's clear now !
>> Maybe the web site could have a section talking about license because
>> I know many people who don't use D and DMD because they are afraid
>> about the commercial license.
>>
>
> I think that's a fairly standard clause f
Hello GG,
Thanks Adam D. Ruppe !
It's clear now !
Maybe the web site could have a section talking about license because
I know many people who don't use D and DMD because they are afraid
about the commercial license.
I think that's a fairly standard clause for just about every compiler out
t
20 matches
Mail list logo
