On 15/03/11 01.33, nedbrek wrote:
Hello all,
"Jesse Phillips" wrote in message
news:ilk728$gk0$1...@digitalmars.com...
libcurl, SQLite, libpng, libbzip2, and the WindowsAPI stuff all sound like
Excellent items to include for standard distribution. It is really nice to
just
have these items ava
On 2011-03-15 10:30, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
On 15/03/11 01.33, nedbrek wrote:
Hello all,
"Jesse Phillips" wrote in message
news:ilk728$gk0$1...@digitalmars.com...
libcurl, SQLite, libpng, libbzip2, and the WindowsAPI stuff all sound
like
Excellent items to include for standard distribution. It i
On 3/15/2011 9:25 AM, Jens wrote:
It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
struct slist_node
{
slist_node* next;
};
template
struct slist_node: public slist_node
{
T data;
};
Something that has b
It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
struct slist_node
{
slist_node* next;
};
template
struct slist_node: public slist_node
{
T data;
};
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >> T[] getBuffer(size_t n);
> >> void commitBuffer(size_t n);
> >
> > void put(T); // as usual
> > void put(T[]); // bulk put; can pass a slice of the buffer from getBuffer
>
> This is already implemented but doesn't allow someone to play with the
> buffer and then c
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:28:50 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
On 3/15/2011 9:25 AM, Jens wrote:
It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
struct slist_node
{
slist_node* next;
};
template
struct slist_node: public
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:25:13 -0400, Jens wrote:
It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
struct slist_node
{
slist_node* next;
};
template
struct slist_node: public slist_node
{
T data;
};
struc
Greetings
I am trying to create a multithreaded application. Right now I am finding it
difficult to work with "shared" qualifier. One of the reasons is that Phobos
library does not seem compatible with "shared" data-structures. For example:
import std.bitmanip;
shared BitArray foo;
void main() {
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 06:25:13 Jens wrote:
> It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
> given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
>
> struct slist_node
> {
> slist_node* next;
> };
>
> template
> struct slist_node: public slist_node
> {
> T
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2011 06:25:13 Jens wrote:
> > It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
> > given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
> >
> > struct slist_node
> > {
> > slist_node* next;
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:28:07 -0400, Caligo wrote:
struct MyStruct{
MyClass mc; // 4 bytes
int a;
int b;
char c;
}
class MyClass{
MyStruct ms; // 16 bytes
int x;
int y;
char z;
}
so, 'ms' is on the heap, even though it's a struct, right? but 'mc' is
just
a reference
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:24:27 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Yes, it's not struct vs. heap more than it is value semantics vs. ...
That should have said "stack vs. heap".
-Steve
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2011 06:25:13 Jens wrote:
>> It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
>> given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
>>
>> struct slist_node
>> {
>> slist_node* next;
>> };
>>
>> template
>> struct slist_no
dsimcha wrote:
> On 3/15/2011 9:25 AM, Jens wrote:
>> It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
>> given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
>>
>> struct slist_node
>> {
>> slist_node* next;
>> };
>>
>> template
>> struct slist_node: public slist_node
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:30:00 -0400, Jens wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
On 3/15/2011 9:25 AM, Jens wrote:
It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct from a
given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
struct slist_node
{
slist_node* next;
};
template
struct slist
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:30:00 -0400, Jens wrote:
>
>> dsimcha wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2011 9:25 AM, Jens wrote:
It seems rather fundamental to be able to compose a new struct
from a given struct using inheritance. Why is this not allowed?
struct slist_no
Jens Wrote:
> OK, silly me. I used a wrong example. I really did want to know about
> non-polymorphic composition from structs via derivation. Sorry for the
> confusion.
>
> struct point
> {
> int x;
> int y;
> };
>
> struct point3d: point
> {
> int z;
> };
You already got your an
On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only alias
this.
Why don't they though? Inheritance does not have to mean polymorphic. It
can mean composition, like in C++. I don't understand the reason for such
ugly syntax.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only alias
>>> this.
>>
>> Why don't they though? Inheritance does not have to mean
>> polymorphic. It can mean composition, like in C++. I don't
>
Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Jens Wrote:
>
>> OK, silly me. I used a wrong example. I really did want to know about
>> non-polymorphic composition from structs via derivation. Sorry for
>> the confusion.
>>
>> struct point
>> {
>> int x;
>> int y;
>> };
>>
>> struct point3d: point
>> {
>> in
On 03/15/2011 01:48 PM, Jens wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only alias
this.
Why don't they though? Inheritance does not have to mean
polymorphic. It can mean composition, l
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:54:13 -0400, Jens wrote:
I didn't ask how to do composition in D. I asked why composition cannot
be done via derivation, i.e., the reasoning behind the language design
choice. A design faux paus IMO.
Because composition by inheritance can be *completely* implemented usi
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 03/15/2011 01:48 PM, Jens wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only alias
> this.
Why don't they though? Inheritance does
Am 15.03.2011 19:48, schrieb Jens:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only alias
this.
>>>
>>> Why don't they though? Inheritance does not have to mean
>>> polymorphic. It
Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 15.03.2011 19:48, schrieb Jens:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only alias
> this.
Why don't they though? Inheritance does not hav
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:54:13 -0400, Jens wrote:
>
>> I didn't ask how to do composition in D. I asked why composition
>> cannot be done via derivation, i.e., the reasoning behind the
>> language design choice. A design faux paus IMO.
>
> Because composition by inherit
Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 15.03.2011 20:24, schrieb Jens:
>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2011 19:48, schrieb Jens:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only
Am 15.03.2011 20:24, schrieb Jens:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2011 19:48, schrieb Jens:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only alias
>> this.
>
> Wh
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:28:09 -0400, Jens wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:54:13 -0400, Jens wrote:
I didn't ask how to do composition in D. I asked why composition
cannot be done via derivation, i.e., the reasoning behind the
language design choice. A design faux pa
On 3/15/11 1:54 PM, Jens wrote:
Jesse Phillips wrote:
Jens Wrote:
OK, silly me. I used a wrong example. I really did want to know about
non-polymorphic composition from structs via derivation. Sorry for
the confusion.
struct point
{
int x;
int y;
};
struct point3d: point
{
int
Jens:
> Sometimes I wonder if D has the goal of changing
> as much as possible just for change sake.
I don't think so. Several D problems come from C syntax/semantics.
Bye,
bearophile
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:28:09 -0400, Jens wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:54:13 -0400, Jens wrote:
>>>
I didn't ask how to do composition in D. I asked why composition
cannot be done via derivation, i.e., the reasoning behi
On 3/15/11 2:07 PM, Jens wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
STL's mild abuses of inheritance (in the absence of something better
such as aliases) are known and understood without being condoned at
large. For a good account of why composition is preferable to
inheritance, you may want to refer to
Am 15.03.2011 20:40, schrieb Jens:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2011 20:24, schrieb Jens:
>>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 19:48, schrieb Jens:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
That's all there is.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/15/11 1:54 PM, Jens wrote:
>> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> Jens Wrote:
>>>
OK, silly me. I used a wrong example. I really did want to know
about non-polymorphic composition from structs via derivation.
Sorry for the confusion.
struct point
>>>
On 3/15/11 2:55 PM, Jens wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. I'm sure there will be
others. ;)
I hope this newsgroup will use future opportunities for learning from
you. It would never hurt if you did the converse (this is really not the
place and the entourage to be cock
Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 15.03.2011 20:40, schrieb Jens:
>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2011 20:24, schrieb Jens:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 15.03.2011 19:48, schrieb Jens:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/15/11 2:07 PM, Jens wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> STL's mild abuses of inheritance (in the absence of something better
>>> such as aliases) are known and understood without being condoned at
>>> large. For a good account of why composition is preferable
On 03/15/2011 12:54 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Furthermore I find C++'s class handling quite unfortunate.. only having
> polymorphism when explicitly using pointers really sucks.
> e.g. you have a base class Foo and a class Bar derived from Foo.. now
you wanna
> put Objects of type Foo and Bar
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/15/11 2:55 PM, Jens wrote:
>> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. I'm sure there
>> will be others. ;)
>
> I hope this newsgroup will use future opportunities for learning from
> you. It would never hurt if you did the converse (this is really not
> t
Am 15.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Jens:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2011 20:40, schrieb Jens:
>>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 20:24, schrieb Jens:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2011 19:48, schrieb Jens:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens
On 3/15/11 9:24 PM, Jens wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/15/11 2:55 PM, Jens wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. I'm sure there
will be others. ;)
I hope this newsgroup will use future opportunities for learning from
you. It would never hurt if you did the converse
Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 15.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Jens:
>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2011 20:40, schrieb Jens:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 15.03.2011 20:24, schrieb Jens:
>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2011 19:48, schrieb Jens:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 03/15/2011 12:42 PM, Jens wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Beauty is subjective, so I guess I can say at this point, go write
>> your own language that is beautiful in your mind. Good luck.
>>
>
> I am. Thanks.
You don't have what it takes to write a language yet. Beauty is only one
a
Am 15.03.2011 21:29, schrieb Jens:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Jens:
>>> How is it different in D where all polymorphic objects are reference
>>> types? Take have the design space away, make everything a glorified
>>> pointer and things are better?
>>
>> They obviously ar
bearophile wrote:
> Jens:
>
>> Sometimes I wonder if D has the goal of changing
>> as much as possible just for change sake.
>
> I don't think so. Several D problems come from C syntax/semantics.
>
May be just too late to change those now.
Jens:
> I wasn't being. I know what I want in a language. I'm also tough,
> thick-skinned, non-patronizing, non-sheeplish... Don't take it
> personally. If someone is wimpy, they probably shouldn't be dialogue-ing
> with me. It's technology for pete's sake.
If you act like a decent human being
Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 15.03.2011 21:29, schrieb Jens:
>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Jens:
How is it different in D where all polymorphic objects are
reference types? Take have the design space away, make everything
a glorified pointer and things are bet
Jens wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Jens:
I wasn't being. I know what I want in a language. I'm also tough,
thick-skinned, non-patronizing, non-sheeplish... Don't take it
personally. If someone is wimpy, they probably shouldn't be
dialogue-ing with me. It's technology for pete's sake.
If you act
On 3/14/2011 12:20 AM, %u wrote:
You can use windbg.exe, which is in \dmd\windows\bin. Of course,
you'll also need to download the Digital Mars C++ compiler from
http://www.digitalmars.com/download/freecompiler.html
Hm... I already have WinDbg (and DMC), but I never thought it's any
more effici
On 03/15/2011 04:04 PM, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Jens wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Jens:
I wasn't being. I know what I want in a language. I'm also tough,
thick-skinned, non-patronizing, non-sheeplish... Don't take it
personally. If someone is wimpy, they probably shouldn't be
dialogue-ing with me
bearophile wrote:
> Jens:
>
>> I wasn't being. I know what I want in a language. I'm also tough,
>> thick-skinned, non-patronizing, non-sheeplish... Don't take it
>> personally. If someone is wimpy, they probably shouldn't be
>> dialogue-ing with me. It's technology for pete's sake.
>
> If you act
Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 03/15/2011 12:42 PM, Jens wrote:
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> Beauty is subjective, so I guess I can say at this point, go write
>>> your own language that is beautiful in your mind. Good luck.
>>>
>>
>> I am. Thanks.
>
> You don't have what it takes to write a langua
On 03/15/2011 10:46 PM, Jens wrote:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 21:29, schrieb Jens:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Jens:
How is it different in D where all polymorphic objects are
reference types? Take have the design space away, make everything
a glorified pointer
On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 14:15:48 Max Samukha wrote:
> On 03/15/2011 10:46 PM, Jens wrote:
> > Daniel Gibson wrote:
> >> Am 15.03.2011 21:29, schrieb Jens:
> >>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 15.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Jens:
> > How is it different in D where all polymorphic objects are
> >>>
Jens Wrote:
> I didn't ask how to do composition in D. I asked why composition cannot
> be done via derivation, i.e., the reasoning behind the language design
> choice. A design faux paus IMO.
Sorry that is a good point. Based on the other threads it seems you feel syntax
for composition is n
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 14:15:48 Max Samukha wrote:
>> On 03/15/2011 10:46 PM, Jens wrote:
>>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 21:29, schrieb Jens:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Jens:
>>> How is it different in D where all po
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 03/15/2011 04:04 PM, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
>> Jens wrote:
>>
>>> bearophile wrote:
Jens:
> I wasn't being. I know what I want in a language. I'm also tough,
> thick-skinned, non-patronizing, non-sheeplish... Don't take it
> personally. If someo
Am 15.03.2011 22:46, schrieb Jens:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 14:15:48 Max Samukha wrote:
>>>
>>> Class objects are possible on stack in D.
>>
>> Yes, but only with the help of the standard library:
>> std.typecons.scoped. scoped classes are going to be removed from the
Given that the input stream is UTF-8, it is understandable that the
following program pulls just one code unit from the standard input (I
think the console encoding is UTF-8 on my Ubuntu 10.10):
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
char code;
readf(" %s", &code);
writeln(code); //
Speaking of structs, shouldn't it be possible to write this:?
struct AAWrapper(KeyType, ValType)
{
ValType[][KeyType] payload;
alias payload.opIndex opIndex;
}
The reasoning behind this is that opIndex in AAWrapper really just
forwards to payload's opIndex, while other functions like
opIn
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jens wrote:
>
> If I found D adequate, I wouldn't be developing another language, now
> would I?
>
>
>
Have you come up with a name for this language that you are developing? May
I suggest D++?
On 3/15/11, Caligo wrote:
> Have you come up with a name for this language that you are developing? May
> I suggest D++?
>
Speaking of language names.. I never understood why people whine about
"D not being searchable because of its name". Then how is `C`
searchable? Heck, half of the results wh
On 3/15/2011 3:41 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I'd say the primary reason someone won't land on a D page if it's the
first time she's looking for it is because D is simply not that
popular yet. But saying that it's not searchable because of its name
is silly, imo.
D is very searchable if you sear
Am 15.03.2011 23:55, schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 3/15/2011 3:41 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> I'd say the primary reason someone won't land on a D page if it's the
>> first time she's looking for it is because D is simply not that
>> popular yet. But saying that it's not searchable because of its n
On 3/15/11, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/15/2011 3:41 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> I'd say the primary reason someone won't land on a D page if it's the
>> first time she's looking for it is because D is simply not that
>> popular yet. But saying that it's not searchable because of its name
>> is
Few months ago I have said that "pure" in D2 is a quite big thing, it's very
useful. Recently I have found a blog post about functional Vs object oriented
coding. This blog post is not so important, but it has given me a little push
to understand something:
http://squirrel.pl/blog/2011/03/14/two
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>
> Speaking of language names.. I never understood why people whine about
> "D not being searchable because of its name". Then how is `C`
> searchable? Heck, half of the results when searching for C will land
> you C++ results. And searchin
On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 15:34:50 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Speaking of structs, shouldn't it be possible to write this:?
>
> struct AAWrapper(KeyType, ValType)
> {
> ValType[][KeyType] payload;
> alias payload.opIndex opIndex;
> }
>
> The reasoning behind this is that opIndex in AAWrapp
On 3/16/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 15:34:50 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> Speaking of structs, shouldn't it be possible to write this:?
>>
>> struct AAWrapper(KeyType, ValType)
>> {
>> ValType[][KeyType] payload;
>> alias payload.opIndex opIndex;
>> }
>>
>> The re
On 16/03/11 04:59, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The reason for the allegedly ugly syntax is that it's considerably more
general. It is often the case that a struct defines an entity that is
implicitly convertible to another entity - could be an rvalue vs.
lvalue, a class vs. another struct vs. a pr
On 16/03/11 10:30, Steven Wawryk wrote:
On 16/03/11 04:59, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The reason for the allegedly ugly syntax is that it's considerably more
general. It is often the case that a struct defines an entity that is
implicitly convertible to another entity - could be an rvalue vs.
lv
On 3/15/11, dsimcha wrote:
> Something that has basically that effect is allowed, just not with that
> syntax:
>
> struct slist_node(T)
> {
> slist_node base;
> alias base this;
>
> T data;
> }
>
Shouldn't base be a pointer? You'll get errors with that code.
I've spotted this in QtD's codebase, dunno if this works:
T static_cast(T, U)(U obj)
{
return cast(T)cast(void*)obj;
}
Andrej Mitrovic:
> I've spotted this in QtD's codebase, dunno if this works:
>
> T static_cast(T, U)(U obj)
> {
> return cast(T)cast(void*)obj;
> }
See this thread, it contains a better implementation of staticCast (partially
written by me), that I'd like in Phobos:
http://www.digitalmars.c
A lot of work is going on around D. However I can't really fit the pieces
together to see how everything works.
Bad quality
--
One problem is the large amount of obsolete data (
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmdfe )
Dsource is The place for D projects. The problem with dsource is
On 3/15/2011 4:04 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
D is very searchable if you search for "D programming language".
That's fine if you want to find D's official homepage.
But if you want to find a library for a specific purpose or something like that
it's not that easy because you can't be sure that th
Am 16.03.2011 02:01, schrieb bearophile:
Andrej Mitrovic:
I've spotted this in QtD's codebase, dunno if this works:
T static_cast(T, U)(U obj)
{
return cast(T)cast(void*)obj;
}
See this thread, it contains a better implementation of staticCast (partially
written by me), that I'd like i
Daniel Gibson:
> This check may make sense, but this cast could even work on
> pointers-to-structs if they are similar, something like
I suggest to keep purposes separated, to keep the semantics of the program
cleaner and to avoid some bugs, letting staticCast work with just objects.
A differe
"Jens" wrote in message
news:ilon8h$lhu$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 03/15/2011 04:04 PM, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
>>> Jens wrote:
>>>
bearophile wrote:
> Jens:
>
>> I wasn't being. I know what I want in a language. I'm also tough,
>> thick-skinned
"David Nadlinger" wrote in message
news:iloidv$8s1$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 3/15/11 9:24 PM, Jens wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 3/15/11 2:55 PM, Jens wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. I'm sure there
will be others. ;)
>>>
>>> I hope this newsgrou
"jasonw" wrote in message
news:ilp2rt$1fs5$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Newsgroup threads often discuss useless things (CRT displays and whether
> black-on-white is better than white-on-black in a feature proposal
> threads). Nick Sabalausky and Walter Bright are worst trolls in this
> regard,
http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel
== Quote from jasonw (u...@webmails.org)'s article
> A lot of work is going on around D. However I can't really fit the pieces
together to see how everything works.
> I've tried to advertise D to colleagues. What they're interested in is a)
library and tool support b) quality of apidocs c) progres
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "jasonw" wrote in message
> news:ilp2rt$1fs5$1...@digitalmars.com...
> >
> > Newsgroup threads often discuss useless things (CRT displays and whether
> > black-on-white is better than white-on-black in a feature proposal
> > threads). Ni
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 23:14:09 Caligo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > "jasonw" wrote in message
> > news:ilp2rt$1fs5$1...@digitalmars.com...
> >
> > > Newsgroup threads often discuss useless things (CRT displays and
> > > whether black-on-white is better
86 matches
Mail list logo
