On 6/27/10 8:37 PM, "Sean Kelly" wrote:
> I'd like to cast a vote for a SAX-style parser. A DOM parser can be built on
> top of it, and frankly, a SAX parser the only kind I'd ever use. I'm either
> working with large streams where building a tree is impractical, or
> performance is enough of a
On 19/06/10 22:46, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/19/2010 03:55 PM, bearophile wrote:
Inside Phobos2 I have counted about 160 usages of the "body" keyword.
I think contract programming can be used more often inside Phobos2
(and maybe some usages of enforce() can be turned into contract
program
Thats no good. I had a brief look at it and its said to work on D2 as well so i
had my hopes high.
Which kind of goes back to having a github type website(lets call it DHUB) for
all
important D projects, so that if someone wants to fork the project its ready and
there. A RubyGems type application
On 20/06/10 22:17, Walter Bright wrote:
An input to a dll is user input, and should be validated (for the sake
of security, and other reasons). Validating it is not debugging.
In that case, feel free to compile DLLs with external contract checking
switched on, but please do not blur the concep
Is it just me or are the backquotes looking like regular quotes in TDPL?
They're introduced on page 36, section 2.2.5.1.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Norbert Nemec wrote:
A library designer should trust the library user to act responsibly.
After all - if the application breaks it is the application designer
who has to answer for it.
And if the application designer finds that his design breaks due to
a change in the library, he will blame t
== Quote from Jacob Carlborg (d...@me.com)'s article
> Is it just me or are the backquotes looking like regular quotes in
TDPL?
> They're introduced on page 36, section 2.2.5.1.
It's not you, they do in fact look like regular quotes. That however, is
a byproduct of the font chosen. Look closely at
On 06/28/2010 03:15 AM, Norbert Nemec wrote:
On 19/06/10 22:46, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/19/2010 03:55 PM, bearophile wrote:
Inside Phobos2 I have counted about 160 usages of the "body" keyword.
I think contract programming can be used more often inside Phobos2
(and maybe some usages of
On 2010-06-27 07:04:30 -0400, Justin Johansson said:
May I ask is anybody working on redeveloping std.xml in the D2/Phobos
library? (Currently it looks like it needs to be started over from
scratch)
Also what is the level of interest from library users for decent XML
support in D2/Phobos?
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:32:24 -0400, Ankh wrote:
In article , a...@a.a says...
|
|"Simen Haugen" wrote in message
|news:i01t9q$2oj...@digitalmars.com...
|> I've just started using stackoverflow.com, and it's a great way of
getting
|> answers.
|
|All I'm going to say is:
|http://www.mail-arch
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:33:04 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:32:24 -0400, Ankh
wrote:
In article , a...@a.a says...
|
|"Simen Haugen" wrote in message
|news:i01t9q$2oj...@digitalmars.com...
|> I've just started using stackoverflow.com, and it's a great way of
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:19:44 -0400, Michal Minich
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:36:04 +0930, Justin Johansson wrote:
immutable class Foo
{
static private Foo instance;
static this() { // line 9
instance = new Foo;
}
static Foo opCall() {
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> C APIs also check their arguments.
Try again, C doesn't have DbC :-) Norbert Nemec says some good things.
Bye,
bearophile
Norbert Nemec:
> [...] to place code for input contract checking in the *calling* code. [...]
> Output contract checks, on the other hand should be compiled inside the
> returning routine.
Is this a positive thing to do? Can this be done? (D must support separate
compilation, but in many situati
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:56:21 -0400, Yao G. wrote:
I did a simple implementation of a pull parser, using this API as
reference: http://xmlpull.org/
But I used a iterator similar to the one used by Steve (from
dcollections) to parse the doc. It turns out that Tango did something
similar fi
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:19:44 -0400, Michal Minich
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:36:04 +0930, Justin Johansson wrote:
immutable class Foo
{
static private Foo instance;
static this() {// line 9
instance = new Foo;
}
static Foo
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:07:40 -0400, Justin Johansson wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:19:44 -0400, Michal Minich
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:36:04 +0930, Justin Johansson wrote:
immutable class Foo
{
static private Foo instance;
static this() {
On 2010-06-28 07:17:53 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
On 06/28/2010 03:15 AM, Norbert Nemec wrote:
On 19/06/10 22:46, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/19/2010 03:55 PM, bearophile wrote:
Inside Phobos2 I have counted about 160 usages of the "body" keyword.
I think contract programming can
This is derived from the GNU multiprecision libs:
http://www.mpir.org/
It has LGPL licence, is this usable as implementation of D2 bigint?
Bye,
bearophile
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:07:40 -0400, Justin Johansson wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
btw. The reason I marked the static instance member as private
was simply to enforce stylist use of Foo() rather than Foo.instance
Yuck Foo().xyz :)
But, whatever floats your
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:40:36 -0400, Justin Johansson wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:07:40 -0400, Justin Johansson
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
To go one step further, if you want it to truly be a singleton type,
you should mark the constructor private.
On 2010-06-28 12:50, Tyro[a.c.edwards] wrote:
== Quote from Jacob Carlborg (d...@me.com)'s article
Is it just me or are the backquotes looking like regular quotes in
TDPL?
They're introduced on page 36, section 2.2.5.1.
It's not you, they do in fact look like regular quotes. That however, is
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/27/2010 10:16 AM, Justin Johansson wrote:
OTOH, there are some really significant W3C specs that you may
or may not be aware of and these are really difficult to implement
in regular imperative languages like C/C++ and Java. Java,
being all that is the following of
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:40:36 -0400, Justin Johansson wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:07:40 -0400, Justin Johansson
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
To go one step further, if you want it to truly be a singleton type,
you should mark
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:07:40 -0400, Justin Johansson wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:19:44 -0400, Michal Minich
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:36:04 +0930, Justin Johansson wrote:
immutable class Foo
{
static private Foo instance;
On 28/06/2010 13:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:56:21 -0400, Yao G. wrote:
I did a simple implementation of a pull parser, using this API as
reference: http://xmlpull.org/
But I used a iterator similar to the one used by Steve (from
dcollections) to parse the doc. It t
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:59:45 -0400, Alix Pexton
wrote:
I've never used anything like SAX myself, though I have used the DOM
quite a lot, and spent most of the time wishing it worked a bit more
like StAX (even though I hadn't heard of StAX at the time ^^).
DOM is usually built on top of
I did something similar some time ago:
import std.stdio;
struct EnumDescription
{
char[] name;
char[] description;
};
//
// generates an enum, an associated string table and a "save" lookup
// function which determines the string which belongs to an given enum
//
char[] generate_enum(char[
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
> We haven't reached consensus on where to put enforce() and friends. Any
> other ideas? Of the above, I like std.checks.
>
> Better yet, how about defining std.exception that includes a host of
> exception-related functionality (such as defining exceptions that reta
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
> C APIs also check their arguments.
Not the standard C library, as far as I know. Of course, it's also gotten a
lot of flak for this.
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:36:15 +0200, Sean Kelly
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
We haven't reached consensus on where to put enforce() and friends. Any
other ideas? Of the above, I like std.checks.
Better yet, how about defining std.exception that includes a host of
exception-related func
Rory McGuire Wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:36:15 +0200, Sean Kelly
> wrote:
>
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >>
> >> We haven't reached consensus on where to put enforce() and friends. Any
> >> other ideas? Of the above, I like std.checks.
> >>
> >> Better yet, how about defining std.excep
What's the difference between std.bind.bind and std.funtional.curry? They seem
to perform the same function (though bind() seams more flexible).
It is really a need for both functions in phobos?
Thanks
Do you think Phobos could benefit by adding data-binding interfaces? The
purpose is to provide the infrastructure necessary so that other libraries
(GUI Toolkits, Validation, ORMs, etc) can inter-operate seamlessly.
In .NET there's a whole set of interfaces for this purpose. They don't have a
grea
I'm very interested.
Tango's XML code was very good and damn fast. Maybe license issues can be worked
out for that part at least?
On 28/06/2010 14:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I myself have tried to think of how xml can be done with ranges, but I
believe one of the key elements is it has to parse xml without loading
the entire document to be efficient enough for some applications. A DOM
style parser which presents a ran
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.ve0c1egpeav...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:32:24 -0400, Ankh wrote:
>
>> In article , a...@a.a says...
>> |
>> |"Simen Haugen" wrote in message
>> |news:i01t9q$2oj...@digitalmars.com...
>> |> I've just started using stackover
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:01:55 +0200, Sean Kelly
wrote:
Rory McGuire Wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:36:15 +0200, Sean Kelly
wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
>> We haven't reached consensus on where to put enforce() and friends.
Any
>> other ideas? Of the above, I like std.checks.
>>
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-06-27 07:04:30 -0400, Justin Johansson said:
May I ask is anybody working on redeveloping std.xml in the D2/Phobos
library? (Currently it looks like it needs to be started over from
scratch)
Also what is the level of interest from library users for decent XML
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-06-28 07:17:53 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
On 06/28/2010 03:15 AM, Norbert Nemec wrote:
On 19/06/10 22:46, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/19/2010 03:55 PM, bearophile wrote:
Inside Phobos2 I have counted about 160 usages of the "body" keyword.
I think co
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
C APIs also check their arguments.
Try again, C doesn't have DbC :-)
What I meant to say was that even the standard library of a language
famous for its to-the-metal performance still checks parameters
compulsively whenever it can. Search e.g. this pa
Sean Kelly wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
C APIs also check their arguments.
Not the standard C library, as far as I know. Of course, it's also gotten a
lot of flak for this.
Nonono. They check whenever they can. Oftentimes they're unable to check.
Example: fseek checks its whence para
Sean Kelly wrote:
Rory McGuire Wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:36:15 +0200, Sean Kelly
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
We haven't reached consensus on where to put enforce() and friends. Any
other ideas? Of the above, I like std.checks.
Better yet, how about defining std.exception that i
On 2010-06-28 14:27:13 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
Here's the generated documentation:
http://michelf.com/docs/d/mfr/xmltok.html
http://michelf.com/docs/d/mfr/xml.html
I'm slowly revamping it to use ranges instead of strings.
I think a tokenizer should be a higher-order range that is
Op Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:33:24 +0200 schreef Norbert Nemec
:
Conceptually, the ultimate solution would certainly be to place code for
input contract checking in the *calling* code. After all, this checking
code serves to debug the calling code, so it should be left to the
caller to decide w
bearophile wrote:
This is derived from the GNU multiprecision libs:
http://www.mpir.org/
It has LGPL licence, is this usable as implementation of D2 bigint?
No, LGPL is not a Boost compatible license. It is considerably more restrictive.
On 2010-06-28 16:22:47 -0400, Walter Bright said:
bearophile wrote:
This is derived from the GNU multiprecision libs:
http://www.mpir.org/
It has LGPL licence, is this usable as implementation of D2 bigint?
No, LGPL is not a Boost compatible license. It is considerably more
restrictive.
I
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:36:19 -0400, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2010-06-28 16:22:47 -0400, Walter Bright
said:
bearophile wrote:
This is derived from the GNU multiprecision libs:
http://www.mpir.org/
It has LGPL licence, is this usable as implementation of D2 bigint?
No, LGPL is not a Boos
Steven Schveighoffer:
> What's wrong with d2's bigint that Don has written?
MPIR is "not invented here" :-) Moving part of the development of a very tricky
part of code full of long asm routines (see their amount of code finely tuned
for different CPUs) to someone else that has more resources an
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:18:46 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
What's wrong with d2's bigint that Don has written?
MPIR is "not invented here" :-) Moving part of the development of a very
tricky part of code full of long asm routines (see their amount of code
finely tuned
Sean Kelly wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
>
>> On 2010-06-23 15:42, Neal Becker wrote:
>> > My main interest is building python-callable modules (which I currently
>> > do
>> > with C++/boost::python). Problem is, D can't be used for this, because
>> > it
>> > can't produce shared libraries (exc
Read the comments, a lot of them bring in D. Some D related questions
should be answered.
http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/does-the-world-need-yet-anothe.html
Bjoern
On Monday, June 28, 2010 16:03:40 BLS wrote:
> Read the comments, a lot of them bring in D. Some D related questions
> should be answered.
> http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/does-the-world-need-yet-anothe.html
> Bjoern
D did seem to pop up in the comments a fair bit, which is certainly
interestin
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, June 28, 2010 16:03:40 BLS wrote:
Read the comments, a lot of them bring in D. Some D related questions
should be answered.
http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/does-the-world-need-yet-anothe.html
Bjoern
D did seem to pop up in the comments a fair bit, which is c
Hello dsimcha,
If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software
patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start
trampling freely.
FWIW:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
--
... <
Hello bearophile,
Steven Schveighoffer:
What's wrong with d2's bigint that Don has written?
MPIR is "not invented here" :-) Moving part of the development of a
very tricky part of code full of long asm routines (see their amount
of code finely tuned for different CPUs) to someone else that h
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:09:02 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 06/17/2010 04:10 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:31:39 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-06-16 05:15:24 -0400, Walter Bright
said:
> The difference
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:09:02 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/17/2010 04:10 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:31:39 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-06-16 05:15:24 -0400, Walter Bright
said:
The differen
Once enforcement of @property is enabled, we need to decide whether calling an
@property function using ()s should be legal. In other words, should
@property **require** omission of ()s or just allow it? My vote is for just
allowing omission, because I've run into the following ambiguity while
de
On 06/27/2010 11:01 AM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
from revision 560 I'm getting
/usr/bin/ld: evalu8.o: undefined reference to symbol
'fetestexcept@@GLIBC_2.1'
/usr/bin/ld: note: 'fetestexcept@@GLIBC_2.1' is defined in DSO
/lib/libm.so.6 so try adding it to the linker command line
/lib/libm.so.6: c
On 6/28/2010 20:40, dsimcha wrote:
> Once enforcement of @property is enabled, we need to decide whether calling an
> @property function using ()s should be legal.
No, "we" don't. Walter does.
> In other words, should
> @property **require** omission of ()s or just allow it? My vote is for ju
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:02:32 -0400, Rainer Deyke
wrote:
On 6/28/2010 20:40, dsimcha wrote:
Once enforcement of @property is enabled, we need to decide whether
calling an
@property function using ()s should be legal.
No, "we" don't. Walter does.
No, Walter doesn't. Walter and others w
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:02:32 -0400, Rainer Deyke
wrote:
On 6/28/2010 20:40, dsimcha wrote:
In other words, should
@property **require** omission of ()s or just allow it? My vote is for
just
allowing omission, because I've run into the following ambiguity while
debugging std.range. Here's
"Robert Jacques" wrote in message
news:op.ve1p6xrt26s...@sandford.myhome.westell.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:02:32 -0400, Rainer Deyke
> wrote:
>> On 6/28/2010 20:40, dsimcha wrote:
>>> In other words, should
>>> @property **require** omission of ()s or just allow it? My vote is for
>>>
"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:i0bme6$2ph...@digitalmars.com...
> Once enforcement of @property is enabled, we need to decide whether
> calling an
> @property function using ()s should be legal. In other words, should
> @property **require** omission of ()s or just allow it? My vote is for
>
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:38:45 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Robert Jacques" wrote in message
[snip]
So... If we allow properties to be called using () syntax, we have
corner
case ambiguities. And if we don't allow properties to be called using ()
syntax, we have corner case ambiguities and
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:53:05 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:i0bme6$2ph...@digitalmars.com...
Once enforcement of @property is enabled, we need to decide whether
calling an
@property function using ()s should be legal. In other words, should
@property **require*
67 matches
Mail list logo
