Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:isu59p$6sd$1...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
But I do have something that just happens to arguably be a lot like
a blog and uses a blogging engine ;)
Gah, only weens use blogging engines!
I tend to just write my
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Heh, I have no idea what a ween is.
Word I made up... meant to be a less serious version of wimpy loser. :)
The main reason I didn't want to go with plain HTML though was
because that makes creating and updating navigation a pain.
Yea, some kind of helper program is
Tumblr? It doesn't have the length limitation.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
http://arsdnet.net/web.d/short-thoughts.html
I sometimes find little things I want to comment on, but it isn't
enough to make it's own page.
How about drdobbs.com? Short-form entries are common there.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 11, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:isu59p$6sd$1...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
But I do have something that
On 06/11/2011 10:41 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Heh, I have no idea what a ween is.
Word I made up... meant to be a less serious version of wimpy loser. :)
Sorry, you didn't make that word up. It's in the Urban Dictionary:
On 6/11/11, Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org wrote:
How about drdobbs.com? Short-form entries are common there.
After they've completely screwed up all the existing links to old
articles, I don't know why anyone would want to write there.
Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org wrote in message
news:it033e$1g7a$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 06/11/2011 10:41 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Heh, I have no idea what a ween is.
Word I made up... meant to be a less serious version of wimpy loser. :)
Sorry, you didn't make
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:16:14 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/10/11 6:03 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 11.06.2011 0:58, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/10/11 3:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I really see Flag more as a way to try to rationalize avoiding adding
named
parameters to the
Am 11.06.2011 07:50, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com wrote in message
news:issvrr$qn3$2...@digitalmars.com...
You seem to be using cafe press for your other merchandise, there's a tool
on there for custom t-shirts.
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:isu8vs$d2f$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 6/10/11 6:14 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescuseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:isovj2$2133$1...@digitalmars.com...
That's it. We need a package
On 6/8/2011 11:56 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
What you said above is also why I *strongly* believe that good (and I mean
*good*) documentation is every bit as important as actually
writing/releasing a tool or library in the first place. I've seen so much
already-made work that's rendered
On 6/8/2011 7:18 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, being able to call C code is fantastic and buys us a lot, but for a lot of
programmers, that just doesn't cut it. They want the libraries to be in D.
I think we've got some good traction lately in providing interfaces to popular c
libraries in
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Andrew Wiley wiley.andre...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.776.1307728872.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Caligo iteronve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Andrei
On 11/06/2011 06:18, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
We should rename Yes and No to Yay and Nay to make them alignable, and
even more importantly to make us appear as old Englishmen!
Yay and Nay are too similar looking, but luckily, Yay is not
actually a old English word :) A more correct alternative
Andrej Mitrovic:
I've found someone that contradicts you:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Function-local_imports_109317.html
Thank you. That person didn't have enough experience yet, it seems. More
experienced Python programmers use local imports only in very uncommon
Am 11.06.2011 01:16, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
Ask, and ye shall receive.
https://github.com/andralex/phobos/commit/801ccc96ce56827cd0d0b608895269bdccba4330
I like this version much more but shouldn't it also be
flag.KeepTerminator for consistency?
Mafi
Tomek Sowiński napisał:
Documentation:
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2863798/std-xml-html-june-11-2011-2-43-am-93k?da=y#XMLWriter
I just noticed it requires everyone to sign in :-(
Please use this link:
http://pastehtml.com/view/awrj8r4zg.html#XMLWriter
--
Tomek
bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
This module won't compile in today's D, but not for a matter of
principles; it's just a random limitation of the language. (It does work
if you import from within a class or struct.) You can insert most
declarations in a scope, so the ones you can't insert are
On 2011-06-10 22:08:31 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
On 6/10/11 8:08 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-10 18:57:20 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Alix Pexton alix.dot.pex...@gmail.dot.com wrote in message
news:isvae3$2o51$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 11/06/2011 06:18, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
We should rename Yes and No to Yay and Nay to make them alignable, and
even more importantly to make us appear as old Englishmen!
Yay and Nay are
Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com wrote in message
news:isvhkr$3s4$1...@digitalmars.com...
I actually didn't meant to post the above. I wrote it, then thought I
should sleep on it before deciding whether I'd post it or not since I was
a little to tired. Then I hit a bad key combo and
On 2011-06-11 07:01:13 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a said:
Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com wrote in message
news:isvhkr$3s4$1...@digitalmars.com...
I actually didn't meant to post the above. I wrote it, then thought I
should sleep on it before deciding whether I'd post it or not since
Am 11.06.2011 13:09, schrieb Michel Fortin:
On 2011-06-11 07:01:13 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a said:
Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com wrote in message
news:isvhkr$3s4$1...@digitalmars.com...
I actually didn't meant to post the above. I wrote it, then thought I
should sleep on it
On 6/10/11 11:55 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
However, I still think it's a deterioration from the user's point of
view compared to the current situation with hand-crafted enums: it still
requires a string, and the documentation will say func(Flag!abc abc),
repeating the parameter's name unless
On 2011-06-11 07:11:19 -0400, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com said:
When using a newsreader you should be able to retract a message, at
least in Thunderbird you can just delete your own message to remove it
from the server.
I know, but Unison doesn't have that option.
--
Michel Fortin
On 6/11/11 12:36 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescuseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:isualt$hf2$1...@digitalmars.com...
Combining existing features towards new ends is in some ways more
difficult than language design because you play within a confined ground,
and
On 6/11/11 4:38 AM, bearophile wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic:
I've found someone that contradicts you:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Function-local_imports_109317.html
Thank you. That person didn't have enough experience yet, it seems. More
experienced Python programmers use
On 6/11/11 4:58 AM, Mafi wrote:
Am 11.06.2011 01:16, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
Ask, and ye shall receive.
https://github.com/andralex/phobos/commit/801ccc96ce56827cd0d0b608895269bdccba4330
I like this version much more but shouldn't it also be
flag.KeepTerminator for consistency?
Mafi
On 11/06/2011 11:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Alix Pextonalix.dot.pex...@gmail.dot.com wrote in message
news:isvae3$2o51$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 11/06/2011 06:18, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
We should rename Yes and No to Yay and Nay to make them alignable, and
even more importantly to make us
Lutger Blijdestijn:
It's considered good practice to narrow scope of variables and put
declarations as close as possible to point of use, yet you don't hunt for
local variable declarations all the time.
I agree this turtle idea has some good sides too. But I want to stress that
it's not among
Andrei:
I'm not very familiar with Python's module system. Is it very similar to
D's?
If you take a look at the Python module system, you copy the first half of it,
its more evident characteristics, ignoring its care for details and corner
cases, and you remove its dynamic characteristics,
On 10/06/2011 09:56, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/9/2011 5:10 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 10/06/2011 00:40, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[snip]
I wrote this article on D, and all I got was this lousy!T shirt
-Steve
I would happily accept this as my runners up prize.
If someone wants to
Kagamin:
Won't this pollute everything with @trasparent annotations, because code
usually doesn't depend on pointer value so it would want to work on
transparent pointers.
Probably some compromise is better, that allows you to drop this annotation in
most situations where it's not
On 6/11/2011 8:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/10/11 6:03 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 11.06.2011 0:58, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/10/11 3:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I really see Flag more as a way to try to rationalize avoiding adding
named
parameters to the language.
I wanted to believe that after all the shit D would now finally take off thanks
to the article competition. I was A BIT surprised to see how small amount of
articles AND votes the thing got. The community is super small loser circle
jerk hobby. There's no way around that. I'm goingg back to C++
On 6/11/11 7:20 AM, bearophile wrote:
Lutger Blijdestijn:
It's considered good practice to narrow scope of variables and put
declarations as close as possible to point of use, yet you don't
hunt for local variable declarations all the time.
I agree this turtle idea has some good sides too.
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 08:48:19 -0400, alan marble wrote:
I wanted to believe that after all the shit D would now finally take off
thanks to the article competition. I was A BIT surprised to see how
small amount of articles AND votes the thing got. The community is super
small loser circle jerk
Am 11.06.2011 14:07, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 6/11/11 4:58 AM, Mafi wrote:
Am 11.06.2011 01:16, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
Ask, and ye shall receive.
https://github.com/andralex/phobos/commit/801ccc96ce56827cd0d0b608895269bdccba4330
I like this version much more but shouldn't it
Am 11.06.2011 14:33, schrieb Alix Pexton:
It is by no means a final design, but perhaps a starting point, so
suggestions welcome.
What about:
/++ I wrote an article about D and all I got was ++/
this.Lousy!T shirt;
//d-programming-language.org
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6315882/pattern-matching-in-d
Andrei
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:16:14 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 6/10/11 6:03 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 11.06.2011 0:58, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/10/11 3:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I really see Flag more as a way to try to rationalize avoiding
On 2011-06-11 07:54:58 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Consider two statements:
1. I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me.
2. I dislike Flag. Instead I want named arguments.
There is little retort to (1) - it simply counts as a vote against. For
(2) the course
On 2011-06-11 09:05:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
As far as the negation, I think we need one more layer of type:
struct FlagParam(string pname)
{
Flag!pname value;
alias value this;
this(Flag!pname x) { this.value = x }
FlagParam op???() const {
On 11/06/2011 14:00, Mafi wrote:
Am 11.06.2011 14:33, schrieb Alix Pexton:
It is by no means a final design, but perhaps a starting point, so
suggestions welcome.
What about:
/++ I wrote an article about D and all I got was ++/
this.Lousy!T shirt;
//d-programming-language.org
I thought
On 6/11/11 8:25 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-11 09:05:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
As far as the negation, I think we need one more layer of type:
struct FlagParam(string pname)
{
Flag!pname value;
alias value this;
this(Flag!pname x) { this.value = x }
On 6/11/11 8:16 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-11 07:54:58 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Consider two statements:
1. I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me.
2. I dislike Flag. Instead I want named arguments.
There is little retort to (1) - it simply counts
On 6/11/11 1:54 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider two statements:
1. I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me.
2. I dislike Flag. Instead I want named arguments.
There is little retort to (1) - it simply counts as a vote against. For
(2) the course of action is to point out the liabilities
On 6/11/11 3:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
To add the documentation effort:
/**
This is an argument for func. Refer to func below.
*/
enum Abc {
no, /// you don't want func to do Abc
yes /// you do want func to do Abc
}
/**
This is func. Mind Abc defined above.
*/
void func(Abc abc);
I
Andrei:
Again, there are two broad categories of changes: feature additions and
removal of undue limitations. We favor doing the latter.
I understand, but that's not always the best decision in this early stage of D
life. There are also few little feature changes I have put in Bugzilla since
There are also few little feature changes I have put in Bugzilla since lot of
time.
I am starting to think that just putting those issues in bugzilla was not
enough, they seem to get mostly ignored. More periodic drumming in this
newsgroup was needed... :-(
Bye,
bearophile
On 6/11/11 9:08 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On 6/11/11 1:54 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider two statements:
1. I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me.
2. I dislike Flag. Instead I want named arguments.
There is little retort to (1) - it simply counts as a vote against. For
(2) the course
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:25:19 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2011-06-11 09:05:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
As far as the negation, I think we need one more layer of type:
struct FlagParam(string pname)
{
Flag!pname value;
alias
Andrei:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6315882/pattern-matching-in-d
Pattern matching is very useful if you have a functional mindset. In Haskell
functions are mostly based on it. But to implement pattern matching you
probably need some kind of structural typing (this means two data types
On 6/11/11 9:30 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:25:19 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2011-06-11 09:05:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
As far as the negation, I think we need one more layer of type:
struct
On 05/06/2011 11:10, Timon Gehr wrote:
snip
Ah, the implicit this parameter...
What's that to do with anything?
Stewart.
And the multi-dimensional slicing discussions tend to advocate mapping
a..b to [a,b].
which would be such a shame...
On 2011-06-11 09:56:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
On 6/11/11 8:16 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-11 07:54:58 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Consider two statements:
1. I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me.
2. I
Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 05/06/2011 11:10, Timon Gehr wrote:
snip
Ah, the implicit this parameter...
What's that to do with anything?
Stewart.
I weakly pure function may modify any memory location reachable by its (mutable)
parameters. What I didn't realize at first and late in the night
For the rare cases where fall-through is actually needed
well, at least this one took off
On 07/06/2011 00:20, Timon Gehr wrote:
snip
I'd much prefer the behavior to be defined as 1x; being equivalent to
1(0x1fx); (That's what D effectively does during runtime. It is also what
the machine code supports, at least in x87).
Defining the behaviour to match that of one brand of
On 6/11/11 10:40 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-11 09:56:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
For representing categorical data with small sets, programming
languages use enumerated types. This is because in a small set you can
actually give name each element.
This is not practical. It would be too expensive to check because
the
hardware does not support it.
neither does for bounds checking. expensiveness does not matter so
much in the debug version.
As has been said, multiple times, UTYPE_MAX is not a valid index,
and that
is not because of the
Basically, using subtraction in loop conditions is a big no-no.
then... why the compiler allows it? design should eliminate those
big no-nos. else, we tend again to educate users, see the case
for not allowing writing:
while(condition);
and requiring instead
while(condition){}
just because
*recommendation* for writing in templates in order to not
conflict with operator.
oh, well, the other way around
Doesn't foreach (i, item; [a, b, c]) {} do it for you?
David
On 6/11/11 6:16 PM, eles wrote:
Basically, using subtraction in loop conditions is a big no-no.
then... why the compiler allows it? design should eliminate those
big no-nos. else, we tend again to educate users, see the case
for
I've overhauled my TempAlloc proposal based on some of the suggestions
I've received. Here are the major changes:
1. I've reconsidered and decided TempAlloc belongs in its own Phobos
module (std.tempalloc) instead of in core.memory, mainly because it uses
Phobos in ways that aren't easy to
Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/06/2011 00:20, Timon Gehr wrote:
snip
I'd much prefer the behavior to be defined as 1x; being equivalent to
1(0x1fx); (That's what D effectively does during runtime. It is also what
the machine code supports, at least in x87).
Defining the behaviour to match that of
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:26 PM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've overhauled my TempAlloc proposal based on some of the suggestions I've
received. Here are the major changes:
1. I've reconsidered and decided TempAlloc belongs in its own Phobos module
(std.tempalloc) instead of in
On 6/11/11 6:08 PM, eles wrote:
well, on unsigned nbits=3, UTYPE_MAX =7 and that's a valid index, as
you write a[0]..a[7]. the array has UTYPE_MAX+1 elements (ie.
length, aka $) and this is exactly why mentioning $ as length
instead of last element is inconsistent when you write a[0..$] (the
On 2011-06-11 12:01:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
On 6/11/11 10:40 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-11 09:56:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
For representing categorical data with small sets, programming
languages use
eles wrote:
This is not practical. It would be too expensive to check because
the
hardware does not support it.
neither does for bounds checking. expensiveness does not matter so
much in the debug version.
As has been said, multiple times, UTYPE_MAX is not a valid index,
and that
is not
On 6/11/11, Alix Pexton alix.dot.pex...@gmail.dot.com wrote:
On 11/06/2011 06:18, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
We should rename Yes and No to Yay and Nay to make them alignable, and
even more importantly to make us appear as old Englishmen!
Yay and Nay are too similar looking, but luckily, Yay is
On 6/11/11 11:56 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-11 12:01:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
On 6/11/11 10:40 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-11 09:56:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
For representing categorical data
Den 11-06-2011 03:26, David Nadlinger skrev:
On 6/11/11 3:21 AM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
This module won't compile in today's D, but not for a matter of
principles; it's just a random limitation of the language. (It does work
if you import from within a class or struct.) You can insert most
== Quote from David Nadlinger (s...@klickverbot.at)'s article
Doesn't foreach (i, item; [a, b, c]) {} do it for you?
David
well, you are right. mea culpa.
As Steve said, this »problem« occurs only when your array length is
larger than the address space.
I hereby challenge you to write some real-world D code and show me a
single instance where the open-right slicing syntax would be a problem
in this regard – personally, I didn't encounter one
On 10/06/2011 22:31, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Trass3ru...@known.com wrote in message news:op.vwu1q2lv3ncmek@enigma...
Am 10.06.2011, 13:48 Uhr, schrieb Robert Clipsham
rob...@octarineparrot.com:
You're probably better off for it - I used to be strongly in the
mercurial camp, but having used git
On 11/06/11 15:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/11/11 9:08 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On 6/11/11 1:54 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider two statements:
1. I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me.
2. I dislike Flag. Instead I want named arguments.
There is little retort to (1) - it
On 10/06/2011 21:18, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On 2011-06-10 13:15, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Robert Clipshamrob...@octarineparrot.com wrote in message
news:ist1af$tbj$1...@digitalmars.com...
As for how well they optimize code, dmd has a state of the art optimizer
from the 90s, or there abouts -
My only problem with github is its extremely slow code display.
Opening up a larger module such as std.algorithm freezes firefox for a
good couple of seconds (ok, maybe firefox is to blame for not running
tabs concurrently or something), and scrolling is terribly slow too. I
could make some coffee
On 11/06/2011 06:50, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Robert Clipshamrob...@octarineparrot.com wrote in message
news:issvrr$qn3$2...@digitalmars.com...
You seem to be using cafe press for your other merchandise, there's a tool
on there for custom t-shirts.
On 11/06/2011 14:28, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 11/06/2011 14:00, Mafi wrote:
Am 11.06.2011 14:33, schrieb Alix Pexton:
It is by no means a final design, but perhaps a starting point, so
suggestions welcome.
What about:
/++ I wrote an article about D and all I got was ++/
this.Lousy!T shirt;
On 10/06/11 05:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On 2011-06-09 20:35, Ben Grabham wrote:
On 09/06/11 20:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The save property of a forward range returns a copy of that range. In
most cases, since ranges are generally restructs, it just returns the
range. You use it when you
On 11/06/2011 14:28, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 11/06/2011 14:00, Mafi wrote:
Am 11.06.2011 14:33, schrieb Alix Pexton:
It is by no means a final design, but perhaps a starting point, so
suggestions welcome.
What about:
/++ I wrote an article about D and all I got was ++/
this.Lousy!T shirt;
On 6/11/11 1:39 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/06/2011 14:28, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 11/06/2011 14:00, Mafi wrote:
Am 11.06.2011 14:33, schrieb Alix Pexton:
It is by no means a final design, but perhaps a starting point, so
suggestions welcome.
What about:
/++ I wrote an article about D and
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:51:31 -0400, KennyTM~ kenn...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be that
GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
weakly
On 2011-06-11 13:08:48 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
With named parameters, we'd have something along the lines of:
topNIndex(a, sortOutput : true);
which is nice, but not present in the language (and I can tell after
talking to Walter it won't be anytime
On 6/11/11 8:18 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
My only problem with github is its extremely slow code display.
Opening up a larger module such as std.algorithm freezes firefox for a
good couple of seconds (ok, maybe firefox is to blame for not running
tabs concurrently or something), and scrolling
On 11/06/2011 12:54, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider two statements:
1. I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me.
This statement holds true for me.
2. I dislike Flag. Instead I want named arguments.
This one is perhaps true. I've never needed named arguments.
There is little retort to
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:35:43 -0400, Jose Armando Garcia
jsan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:26 PM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've overhauled my TempAlloc proposal based on some of the suggestions
I've
received. Here are the major changes:
1. I've reconsidered and
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:59:55 -0400, pillsy pillsb...@gmail.com wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:51:31 -0400, KennyTM~ kenn...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be
that
GC
On 6/11/11, David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote:
On 6/11/11 8:18 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
My only problem with github is its extremely slow code display.
Opening up a larger module such as std.algorithm freezes firefox for a
good couple of seconds (ok, maybe firefox is to blame for not
* Btw. you're right about datetime, it doesn't even display in github
except the raw version, I had that wrong.
I just checked with IE, it works perfectly. Now I have to figure out
which FF plugin is causing this mess. Happy times..
On 6/11/11 9:27 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
[…]Using raw is ok, it's just a text file in a
browser so that doesn't cause any issues.
I thought you could »make some coffee while std.datetime opens«? ;)
David
Well this is nuts I've disabled all plugins and it still freezes..
I'll give FF4 a try, if that thing doesn't work I'll have to consider
doing yet another browser switch. I hate doing these things..
On 6/11/11, David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote:
On 6/11/11 9:27 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
[…]Using raw is ok, it's just a text file in a
browser so that doesn't cause any issues.
I thought you could »make some coffee while std.datetime opens«? ;)
David
For std.algorithm, I could.
On 11/06/2011 19:35, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/11/11 1:39 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/06/2011 14:28, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 11/06/2011 14:00, Mafi wrote:
Am 11.06.2011 14:33, schrieb Alix Pexton:
It is by no means a final design, but perhaps a starting point, so
suggestions welcome.
Holy hell Chrome loads it in a blink of an eye, no lag whatsoever and
there's no laggy scrollbar either. Kudos to Google, I guess.
On 6/11/11 2:12 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 11/06/2011 12:54, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider two statements:
1. I dislike Flag. It looks ugly to me.
This statement holds true for me.
2. I dislike Flag. Instead I want named arguments.
This one is perhaps true. I've never needed
On 6/11/11 1:59 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-11 13:08:48 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
With named parameters, we'd have something along the lines of:
topNIndex(a, sortOutput : true);
which is nice, but not present in the language (and I can tell after
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo
