Thanks. Then, it seems that it is a bug in NSIS.
Now I know that this problem does not happen so often, but still is it possible
to
warn people to backup their PATH　before running it? I was fortunate
because I
happened to have a backup so I could recover easily. But some one may have worse
luck.
On 08/14/2010 01:20 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday 13 August 2010 23:14:02 Christian Kamm wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
TPDL, page 216: "Making an overridable function private in an
interface..prevents an implementation from calling the super function".
But the code example above compil
The page at
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/D_(The_Programming_Language)/d2/Lesson_1/Phobos
has a few inaccuracies (for example claims that writefln and writeln are
the same). Is the person maintaining it on this newsgroup?
Andrei
On 08/13/2010 09:23 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
Hi Mengu,
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:15:01 -0400, Mengu wrote:
Mengu Wrote:
Hello everyone,
Python has a library named urllib which can be found at
http://docs.python.org/library/urllib2.html.
Does Phobos have anything similar to this library? All
I agree, NVI really looks like a nice idiom/pattern to me, I'd hate to loose
it.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday 13 August 2010 23:14:02 Christian Kamm wrote:
> > Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > > TPDL, page 216: "Making an overridable function private in an
> > >
Well, maybe it would be overkill, but adding an option like "Add to PATH,
but make a backup first" which creates a .reg backup of the environment
variables on the desktop could be a nice option. There seems to be a way to
backup deleted environment variables as well, check the 3rd post on this
site
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:03:15 +, Deokjae Lee wrote:
> template T(alias X) {
> Error: template instance T!(int) does not match template declaration T
> (alias X)
> However, I got a reply that the behavior is intended. I think the
> limitation that the built-in types are not accepted as alias p
On page 217+218 there are two interfaces that define some final methods with
the same name, and a class that inherits from both:
interface Timer
{
final void run() {}
}
interface Application
{
final void run() {}
}
class TimedApp : Timer, Application
{
void run() {}// cannot defi
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:i467if$1rn...@digitalmars.com...
> The page at
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/D_(The_Programming_Language)/d2/Lesson_1/Phobos
> has a few inaccuracies (for example claims that writefln and writeln are
> the same). Is the person maintaining it on this
Sun, 08 Aug 2010 02:22:30 +, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Bernard Helyer (b.hel...@gmail.com)'s article
>> I'm writing a compiler, not a half-arsed documentation generator
>> (because if I wrote the DDoc stuff, that's exactly what it would be).
>
> I'll concur with Walter. I think that som
Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:54:03 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2010-08-07 00:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> The reason they're the same is that the docs were originally written
>>> in html. The original conversion to ddoc was done via search and
>>> replace. One of the HUGE benefits of dd
You are just becoming a parody of yourself.
Keep trying, though.
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:06:04 -0500, retard wrote:
Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:54:03 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2010-08-07 00:54, Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
The reason they're the same is that the docs were originally writt
Will D try to stay current with new processor instructions or provide
just a lowest common denominator? I notice that newer x86
instructions such as CRC32 and POPCNT are not supported by the inline
assembler.
Just for the record, the Classes chapter were a *lot* of fun. Andrei kept
the chapters relatively simple, so they're easy to grasp (imo). I thought I
was going to spend weeks trying to understand classes in D, but the class
features really tie in nicely together. I have yet to reach the operator
ov
Hi Andrei,
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:35:21 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 09:23 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
>> Hi Mengu,
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:15:01 -0400, Mengu wrote:
>>
>>> Mengu Wrote:
>>>
Hello everyone,
Python has a library named urllib which can be found
On Saturday 14 August 2010 15:43:54 Graham Fawcett wrote:
> If you need me to sign a Contributor's Agreement or something, please
> email me.
Yes, sign right here, under "I agree to write quality code." ;)
- Jonathan M Davis
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I don't know who originally created it
According to the discussion part of the wiki page the author belongs to the
emerging group of collectors of wisdom and uses the wiki as a log of his
approach to his final state.
-manfred
retard wrote:
3. these other systems also support generating correct, conforming HTML/
XML/TeX/PDF/MAN/whatever. With ddoc you need to use some semi-official
templates you need to dig from the newsgroup archives. Doxygen provides
all this by default. How is that bad for productivity?
If you w
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:29:44 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Sending a non-format-string as the first arg to
> writef or writefln should *not* be encouraged.
Interestingly enough, the example on the Digital Mars D2 website does
exactly that.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/
"writefln("Hello Wo
On Saturday 14 August 2010 13:06:04 retard wrote:
> Comparing hand-written html to ddoc is a bit unfair. I've used several
> CMS and template systems. They even have good support for D. My
> experiences tell me that
>
> 1. ddoc has worse productivity than real document generators such as
> doxygen
Bernard Helyer wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:29:44 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Sending a non-format-string as the first arg to
writef or writefln should *not* be encouraged.
Interestingly enough, the example on the Digital Mars D2 website does
exactly that.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.
Many examples from the docs have writef's where there should be write's. I'm
guessing most of them were copy-pasted for D2 from the D1 pages. :p
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:29:44 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > Sending a non-format-string as
retard wrote:
Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:54:03 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
So overall the other systems are much better and I also think I could
write something 10 times better than ddoc in 2..7 days if someone would
give me an untainted GPL licensed frontend that didn't look so butt ugly.
What
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:20:49 -0500, Mike Parker wrote:
What prevents you from contributing to the frontend under its current
license?
Apparently he doesn't like butt-ugly frontends. That's the game breaker
for him :|
--
Yao G.
Yao G. Wrote:
> You are just becoming a parody of yourself.
Everyone deserves respect when expresses opinions honestly and in an civil way,
even when the ideas are wrong.
Bye,
bearophile
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:32:18 -0500, bearophile
wrote:
Yao G. Wrote:
You are just becoming a parody of yourself.
Everyone deserves respect when expresses opinions honestly and in an
civil way, even when the ideas are wrong.
Bye,
bearophile
Civil way? Really? But you are right about t
Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:32:18 -0400, bearophile wrote:
> Yao G. Wrote:
>
>> You are just becoming a parody of yourself.
>
> Everyone deserves respect when expresses opinions honestly and in an
> civil way, even when the ideas are wrong.
I just made some arguments against using ddoc since in my opin
To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to
give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.
Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:24:33 -0500, Yao G. wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:20:49 -0500, Mike Parker
> wrote:
>
>
>> What prevents you from contributing to the frontend under its current
>> license?
>
> Apparently he doesn't like butt-ugly frontends. That's the game breaker
> for him :|
I'm usin
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:18:19 -0500, retard wrote:
[snip]
Thanks for your informative post. I'm really glad that you don't use such
primitive, butt-ugly tools like DDOC.
--
Yao G.
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:30:28 -0500, retard wrote:
I'm using the same argumentation as Walter here. If I ever contributed
code to the proprietary dmd, I would get sued by a group of lawyers when
contributing code later to some other proprietary / open source compiler.
Even seeing the code might
Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:33:30 -0500, Yao G. wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:18:19 -0500, retard wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
> Thanks for your informative post. I'm really glad that you don't use
> such primitive, butt-ugly tools like DDOC.
You don't need to use it either. Why do you think it's a personal
On 15/08/2010 04:51, retard wrote:
Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:33:30 -0500, Yao G. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:18:19 -0500, retard wrote:
[snip]
Thanks for your informative post. I'm really glad that you don't use
such primitive, butt-ugly tools like DDOC.
You don't need to use it either. Why
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:51:45 -0500, retard wrote:
You don't need to use it either. Why do you think it's a personal attack
if I'm evaluating some tool and don't see it fit for some part of the
community? Do you think my opinions would have more value if I wrote
under my real name? ''Yao G.'' is
retard Wrote:
> Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:33:30 -0500, Yao G. wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:18:19 -0500, retard wrote:
> >
> >> [snip]
> >
> > Thanks for your informative post. I'm really glad that you don't use
> > such primitive, butt-ugly tools like DDOC.
>
> You don't need to use it eithe
On Saturday 14 August 2010 20:42:42 Ellis Peters wrote:
> Go away troll! Your just waisting our time. Go write some real world code
> and talk less shit. There's nothing to loose.
>
> DDOC is better than doxygen. We don't need to argue that here, because
> everyone is a fan of D. We know you're a
== Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructiona...@gmail.com)'s article
> To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to
> give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.
Not only that, because it doesn't require markup, the docs look good as plain
text
comments, not just wh
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructiona...@gmail.com)'s article
To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to
give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.
Not only that, because it doesn't require markup, the docs look good as plain
text
commen
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:46:27 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> No it doesn't :-)
I must be losing my mind!
:P
Walter Bright Wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructiona...@gmail.com)'s article
> >> To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to
> >> give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.
> >
> > Not only that, because it doesn't require markup
retard wrote:
Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:24:33 -0500, Yao G. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:20:49 -0500, Mike Parker
wrote:
What prevents you from contributing to the frontend under its current
license?
Apparently he doesn't like butt-ugly frontends. That's the game breaker
for him :|
I'm using
Bernard Helyer wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:46:27 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
No it doesn't :-)
I must be losing my mind!
:P
Either that or I cheated!
lurker wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructiona...@gmail.com)'s article
To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to
give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.
Not only that, because it doesn't require markup, the
43 matches
Mail list logo
