Don:
I didn't mean to put my words in your mouth, sorry. I'll try to be more careful.
>Also an attribute is a terrible way to implement almost anything -- you need a
>really good reason to add a new attribute.<
You have noticed that some of the things I have proposed in the last months use
att
Michel Fortin, el 5 de mayo a las 22:12 me escribiste:
> On 2010-05-05 21:12:47 -0400, Walter Bright said:
>
> >Michel Fortin wrote:
> >>If even Walter has difficulty figuring out the ! around __traits,
> >
> >Missing a ! is always a problem. People even do not see the word "not".
>
> It was an
bearophile wrote:
Don:
I didn't mean to put my words in your mouth, sorry. I'll try to be more careful.
Also an attribute is a terrible way to implement almost anything -- you need a
really good reason to add a new attribute.<
You have noticed that some of the things I have proposed in the
Hello Don,
My point could be solved with some level of run-time reflection. Or
perhaps by allowing unittest{} as a (static) interface member.
Might something ad-hoc like this work?
interface Foo { ... }
class TestFoo(T) if(is(T : Foo))
{
unittest
{
}
}
--
... <
Robert Jacques wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 13:10:07 -0400, Jesse Phillips
> wrote:
>> Robert Jacques Wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:51:57 -0400, Rick Trelles
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I'd recommend reading the D language documentation on the Digital Mars
>>> website.
>>
>> Rob
Leandro Lucarella:
> Please, remove the leading __ from features that are standard (as oposed
> from implementation extensions).
I appreciate Walter's decision to use those __names: it allows us to use and
try a feature now, it allows to create its implementation progressively, and
gives time t
bearophile, el 6 de mayo a las 12:43 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella:
> > Please, remove the leading __ from features that are standard (as oposed
> > from implementation extensions).
>
> I appreciate Walter's decision to use those __names: it allows us to use
> and try a feature now, it allo
Don Wrote:
> Two questions. (1) What happens with functions? For example:
> x[] = sin(y[]);
> OR
> x[] = sin(y[])[];
>
Array op is effectively a statement-wide operation (it can be even deemed as a
statement itself), braces are the hint which arrays are iterated. Since sin's
result is not an ar
Kagamin:
>Since sin's result is not an array,<
I am not sure, but I presume here Don was talking about a dispatch of the sin
to all items of an array, so its result is another (new or mutated in place)
array.
Bye,
bearophile
On Thu, 06 May 2010 14:40:17 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Kagamin:
Since sin's result is not an array,<
I am not sure, but I presume here Don was talking about a dispatch of
the sin to all items of an array, so its result is another (new or
mutated in place) array.
Bye,
bearophile
That
Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I'm also another person that finds semicolons magically appearing at the
>> end of statements...even when I use a language that doesn't allow them ;)
>
> It's funny how that works. I was once asked what the key command was for a
> particular operat
Robert Jacques wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 14:40:17 -0400, bearophile
> wrote:
>> Kagamin:
>>> Since sin's result is not an array,<
>>
>> I am not sure, but I presume here Don was talking about a dispatch of
>> the sin to all items of an array, so its result is another (new or
>> mutated in plac
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 14:40:17 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Kagamin:
Since sin's result is not an array,<
I am not sure, but I presume here Don was talking about a dispatch of
the sin to all items of an array, so its result is another (new or
mutated in place) array.
Bye,
Johan Granberg:
> Matlab is doing
> this in a very nice way and it is far from all uses that requiers optimal
> speed.
Some parts of the Chapel language are exceptionally well designed, and deserve
to be stolen. For numerical computations it looks far better than Fortress.
Bye,
bearophile
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:48:30 -0400, Don wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 14:40:17 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Kagamin:
Since sin's result is not an array,<
I am not sure, but I presume here Don was talking about a dispatch of
the sin to all items of an array, so its result
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:54:48 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Johan Granberg:
Matlab is doing
this in a very nice way and it is far from all uses that requiers
optimal
speed.
Some parts of the Chapel language are exceptionally well designed, and
deserve to be stolen. For numerical computations
Robert Jacques:
> Do you have some specific examples in mind?
I have tons of specific examples in mind :-)
I have written some things here, and I'd like to write one more time about this:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=87311
http://www.digita
A screencast overview of the Go package model (writing, publishing,
downloading, and installing third-party code):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDWBJOXs_iI
Simple and well conceived! I would like this for D please (and am willing
to help :)).
DSSS covers similar ground, but appears to be mo
Graham Fawcett wrote:
Simple and well conceived! I would like this for D please (and am willing
to help :)).
Any help in this direction will be most appreciated.
Don Wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> > Don wrote:
> >> Walter Bright wrote:
> >>> Don wrote:
> There are several compiler bugs relating to array operations, and
> almost all relate to this issue. I'd like to fix them, but I need to
> know which way it is supposed to work.
> >>>
> >
On Thu, 06 May 2010 19:02:03 -0400, Jason House
wrote:
Don Wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Don wrote:
There are several compiler bugs relating to array operations, and
almost all relate to this issue. I'd like to fix them, but I need
to
On 2010-05-06 19:02:03 -0400, Jason House said:
Don Wrote:
x[] = sin(y[]);
I strongly favor the first syntax since it matches how I'd write it in
a for loop.
i.e. I'd replace [] with [i].
This is the best way to see array operations I've read up to now:
replace [] with [i], i being th
On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:57:07 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2010-05-06 19:02:03 -0400, Jason House
said:
Don Wrote:
x[] = sin(y[]);
I strongly favor the first syntax since it matches how I'd write it in
a for loop.
i.e. I'd replace [] with [i].
This is the best way to see array
Hello Graham,
Simple and well conceived! I would like this for D please (and am
willing to help :)).
I haven't watched the video (not enough bandwidth) but I'd like a well done
package tool as well. Thinking in the direction of a spec, what do you like
about the Go system?
Some things I'd
Is there a way to make optlink link D programs in large address aware mode so
that I can at least use 4 GB of address space instead of 2 on Win64 until DMD
is ported to 64-bit?
On 2010-05-06 21:48:09 -0400, "Robert Jacques" said:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:57:07 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2010-05-06 19:02:03 -0400, Jason House said:
Don Wrote:
x[] = sin(y[]);
I strongly favor the first syntax since it matches how I'd write it in
a for loop.
i.e. I'd re
On 2010-05-06 22:46:42 -0400, Michel Fortin said:
That said, I'd expect the compiler to call sin(y) only once, so it'd be
more like that:
auto sinY = sin(y);
for(int i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
x[i] = sinY[i];
}
And I'd expect that because in the expr
On 07.05.2010 04:45, dsimcha wrote:
Is there a way to make optlink link D programs in large address aware mode so
that I can at least use 4 GB of address space instead of 2 on Win64 until DMD
is ported to 64-bit?
You can supposedly use the editbin tool that comes with msvc to enable
large addr
On Thu, 06 May 2010 22:46:42 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2010-05-06 21:48:09 -0400, "Robert Jacques" said:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:57:07 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2010-05-06 19:02:03 -0400, Jason House
said:
Don Wrote:
x[] = sin(y[]);
I strongly favor the first synta
Robert Jacques Wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 22:46:42 -0400, Michel Fortin
> wrote:
>
> > On 2010-05-06 21:48:09 -0400, "Robert Jacques" said:
> >
> >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:57:07 -0400, Michel Fortin
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2010-05-06 19:02:03 -0400, Jason House
> >>> said:
> >>>
>
On Fri, 07 May 2010 00:13:04 -0400, Jason House
wrote:
Robert Jacques Wrote:
given
real foo(real value) {...}
and
real[] foo(real[] value) {...}
what should happen with the follow line of code:
x[] = foo(y[]) + z[];
That can be interpreted in either of the following ways:
foreach(i) x[i]
On 7-5-2010 10:45, dsimcha wrote:
> Is there a way to make optlink link D programs in large address aware mode so
> that I can at least use 4 GB of address space instead of 2 on Win64 until DMD
> is ported to 64-bit?
Are you sure DMC's clib and phobos are large address aware? IIRC, there
are quite
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
On 7-5-2010 10:45, dsimcha wrote:
Is there a way to make optlink link D programs in large address aware mode so
that I can at least use 4 GB of address space instead of 2 on Win64 until DMD
is ported to 64-bit?
Are you sure DMC's clib and phobos are large address aware?
33 matches
Mail list logo
