bearophile wrote:
> J.M. Berger:
>
>> Well, that makes it 3 valid points out of 11 still ;)
>
> Please Jerome, this time don't feed the list owner :-)
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
:D
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:48:42 -0700, %u wrote:
Hi,
I'm running this code below, and it returns an array of length zero for
both
print statements. Is this a bug, or am I missing something?
Thank you!
private import std.stdio;
private import std.traits;
class Temp
{
public int bas
Hi,
I'm running this code below, and it returns an array of length zero for both
print statements. Is this a bug, or am I missing something?
Thank you!
private import std.stdio;
private import std.traits;
class Temp
{
public int base1;
public void foo() { writeln("foo base cal
On Sunday 26 December 2010 15:02:42 Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 26.12.2010 23:04, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> > On Sunday 26 December 2010 07:08:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
> >>>
> >>> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> in
J.M. Berger:
> Well, that makes it 3 valid points out of 11 still ;)
Please Jerome, this time don't feed the list owner :-)
Bye,
bearophile
Thank you for the response!
Unfortunately, though, that only gives me the name of the C functions, not the
actual headers. I need to know the parameters and return type of each function
in
order to be able to replace the library.
spir wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>
> > int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> > int i = void; // not initialized
>
> Thanks. Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think
> at 'void'. (I will use it often). By the way, I don't want to
On 12/27/10, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> I really like how D does this: Make the safe thing default and the
> unsafe thing possible via more typing.
Compare this to Go, where the safe thing is the only way of doing
things and the unsafe thing is impossible*.
Unsafe can be useful, and D allows it. But
Am 26.12.2010 23:04, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
On Sunday 26 December 2010 07:08:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
int i = void; // not initialized
Thanks. Actua
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
3. inline assembler
I have almost never used inline assembler even in languages that
support it. Of course, this is only a sub-point of your point 6:
using inline assembly in a language as slow as Python would be
completely pointless.
Inline assembly isn't just for spee
On Sunday 26 December 2010 07:08:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
> >
> > Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> >> int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> >> int i = void; // not initialized
> >
> > Thanks. Actually this solves my "se
Walter Bright wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>> One of the few advantages of D over Python is that in D you are able to
>> implement efficient and custom data structures without leaving the D
>> language
>> itself :-)
>
> few?
>
> How about:
>
> 1. scope guard
Agreed
> 2. multithreaded programming
%u wrote:
Hi,
I've been trying to make my own run-time library for D, but I've come
across a
dead end: *any* library I make will inherently depend on SNN.lib, and
there
are no headers for that C run-time library.
How can I write my own library in place of SNN.lib if I do not know what
This is certainly a personal preference, but I would add static typing to
that list.
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>
>> One of the few advantages of D over Python is that in D you are able to
>> implement efficient and custom data structures without l
Andrei:
> Well the D Zen would attempt to reconcile the two such that the obvious
> option is the safest and the fastest.<
That's indeed better (but not always possible).
>Let's also not forget that "safe" is a bit abused here - we're not talking
>about lack of safety as much as incorrect res
bearophile wrote:
One of the few advantages of D over Python is that in D you are able to
implement efficient and custom data structures without leaving the D language
itself :-)
few?
How about:
1. scope guard
2. multithreaded programming (the GIL doesn't count)
3. inline assembler
4. immutab
Hi,
I've been trying to make my own run-time library for D, but I've come across a
dead end: *any* library I make will inherently depend on SNN.lib, and there
are no headers for that C run-time library.
How can I write my own library in place of SNN.lib if I do not know what the
function specific
On 12/26/10 11:56 AM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
But you don't need a new string for each line to evaluate max over
line lengths; the current byLine works.<
Right. There are various different ways to implement that little task
in functional style. But the task requires to print the longest on
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010, bearophile wrote:
> Adam D. Ruppe:
>
> > Remember, a lot of your posts are actually very subjective. Those
> > things tend to get a lot of debate without an objective right or
> > wrong coming out of it. It could go both ways.
>
> Right. But I have discussed a lot about usab
Adam D. Ruppe:
> Remember, a lot of your posts are actually very subjective. Those
> things tend to get a lot of debate without an objective right or
> wrong coming out of it. It could go both ways.
Right. But I have discussed a lot about usability & egonomy matters in the
Python newsgroups too
Michel Fortin:
> > But you don't need a new string for each line to evaluate max over line
> > lengths; the current byLine works.
>
> That's true.
>
>
> > Generally I think buffer reuse in byLine() is too valuable to let go.
>
> I also agree it's wasteful.
See my answers to Andrei.
> But
bearophile wrote:
> Talking about usability and egonomy in this newsgroups
> is sometimes a very tiring job :-)
Remember, a lot of your posts are actually very subjective. Those
things tend to get a lot of debate without an objective right or
wrong coming out of it. It could go both ways.
On 2010-12-26 12:13:41 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
On 12/26/10 10:12 AM, bearophile wrote:
This is related to this (closed) issue, but this time I prefer to
discuss the topic on the newsgroup:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4474
To show why this enhancement request is us
Andrei:
>But you don't need a new string for each line to evaluate max over line
>lengths; the current byLine works.<
Right. There are various different ways to implement that little task in
functional style. But the task requires to print the longest ones. So you have
to filter according to t
On 12/26/10 10:12 AM, bearophile wrote:
This is related to this (closed) issue, but this time I prefer to discuss the
topic on the newsgroup:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4474
To show why this enhancement request is useful I use a little scripting task. A
D2 program has to rea
Jonathan M Davis:
> and the labeled break and continue in D just makes them that
> much better,
I agree that D labeled break and continue are nice to have, I miss them in
Python :-)
In Python where you need a labeled break you sometimes have to replace the
whole block of code with a function
This is related to this (closed) issue, but this time I prefer to discuss the
topic on the newsgroup:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4474
To show why this enhancement request is useful I use a little scripting task. A
D2 program has to read a file that contains one word in each li
On 12/26/10 8:54 AM, spir wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
int i = void; // not initialized
Thanks. Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think at 'void'.
(I will use it often). By the way, I don't wa
Iain Buclaw wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Anyone has had a similar issue?
http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=13923.0
Andrei
Shouldn't codeblocks be using -lphobos2?
Code::Blocks uses gcc to do the linking, and uses -lphobos (on U
spir:
> Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think at 'void'. (I
> will use it often).
Do not use =void often, it's for performance critical situations only (and
other uncommon situations). It goes against the D way.
Bye,
bearophile
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:54:12 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> int i = void; // not initialized
Thanks. Actually this solves my "semantic" issue, did not even think at 'void'.
(I will use it often). By the way, I don't want to play the superhero with
un
Well that's why I declare my variables right where I need them,
compared to e.g. Pascal where you have to define all variables at the
top.
But If I understand correctly, then you can use the following:
3) int i = int.init; // meant to be auto-initialized to int.init
4) int i; // auto-initialized
Andrej Mitrovic:
> int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
> int i = void; // not initialized
I think the OP meant:
1) int i = void; // not initialized
2) int i = 0; // initialized to 0
3) int i; // meant to be auto-initialized to int.init, similar to case 2
4) int i; // auto-initialized to in
int i;// auto-initialized to int.init
int i = void; // not initialized
There is no ambiguity. If you want to play with non-initialized values
(and play a superhero) you have to work extra and "initialize" those
variables with void, which means they're uninitialized.
On 12/26/10, spir wrote:
Hello,
I have a problem with D's auto-init feature. When reading in someone else's code
int i;
there is no way, I guess, to know whether this means "i is initialised to 0" or
"i is left undefined". For this reason, in the former case I do explicitely
initialise. Thus,
int i = 0;
On Sunday 26 December 2010 02:38:53 Walter Bright wrote:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
> > I don't think so. They're much more clean and readable than goto (they
> > just restart/jump behind the current loop or, if you use them with
> > labels, an outer loop - IMHO that's quite different from jumping to
>
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:36:26 + (UTC)
Tomek Sowiński wrote:
> >
> >
> > A random-access range is a bidirectional range OR an infinite forward
> > range that offers the primitive opIndex.
> >
> >
> >
> > I can't be sure whether the former should also provide the primitive
> > 'length'.
>
Simen kjaeraas wrote:
After more problems, I have also come to the conclusion that what is
most commonly needed is not really tail-const, but head-mutable. Why
this took me more than a few minutes to consider, I do not know.
Common use-cases would then look like this:
struct MyRange( Range )
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:45:42 -0500
bearophile wrote:
> You need to add some shades of grey to your palette. break, continue and goto
> are bad, and it's better to limit their usage.
You need to soften your rocks of certitudes, Bearophile.
cycle
(action0)
if condi
Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Simen kjaeraas wrote:
I've also considered a template on the form
mixin tailConst!( SimpleRange, SimpleRange!( Tail!T ) );
or
mixin tailConst!( SimpleRange, Tail!T );
A closer look at this reveals that it won't work that simply, because
SimpleRange in this
Daniel Gibson wrote:
I don't think so. They're much more clean and readable than goto (they
just restart/jump behind the current loop or, if you use them with
labels, an outer loop - IMHO that's quite different from jumping to
arbitrary labels).
I guess this is the reason why break and continue
foobar wrote:
Isn't this subjective and depends on what you compare with and also depends
on use cases?
I think we should be careful about deciding what constructs are "bug prone" and
which aren't. My attitudes on it are based on being a programmer for 35 years -
my own experience with bugs,
foobar:
> Structured programming is considered a huge improvement over gotos and
> spaghetti code and I thought that OO is considered better than Structured
> programming.
Unfortunately both biological evolution and software evolution are not a March
of Progress :-) So OOP doesn't automaticall
Don Wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
> > Walter Bright:
> >
> >> I thought the idea that break and continue were bad died about 25 years
> >> ago.
> >> Pascal didn't allow them, and pretty much everyone hated the workaround of
> >> having to use flag variables.
> >
> > You need to add some shades o
44 matches
Mail list logo
