Good stuff. Nice to see Indigo support.
On 8/30/11 12:45 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Am 30.08.2011 02:56, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 8/29/11 4:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/29/2011 2:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Certainly, for the common case, adding move constructors is a needless
complication, and I'd _very_ leery of the
Hi,
Thanks for the replies, I was away for a couple of days and I couldn't test
your proposals.
Sadly nothing seemed to work...I checked that the dmd.conf that I think it
was using was actually the one used and also that the DFLAG argument
-L-L/usr/local/lib/lib32 is present.
Running the nm
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 08:57:53 Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
I'm sorry - i provided wrong example. I had property in my code, and he
didn't complained about getter, but setter (of course he can't diversify by
different return values).
code
interface Interface
{
void
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 08:57:53 Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
[...]
code
interface Interface
{
void method(Interface);
}
class Class : Interface
{
void method(Class) {}
}
void main() {}
/code
This particular example is not a bug. [...]
You're absolutely
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:42:04 Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 08:57:53 Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
[...]
code
interface Interface
{
void method(Interface);
}
class Class : Interface
{
void method(Class) {}
}
void main()
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:24:46 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 14:09 Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
code
interface Interface {
Interface method();
}
class Class : Interface {
override Class method() {}
}
/code
DMD complains it isn't overriding. How
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:41:19 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas
simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:22:52 +0200, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
I do think that the this() @disable; is an ugly syntax, and I cringe
when seeing it. But I can't think of anything better. It
Mehrdad Wrote:
I feel like you hit the nail on the head. I feel the same way about const.
Transitivity is beautiful on the outside, but I can never actually get
it working, so I just make everything non-const. I have to sometimes do
this even in Phobos itself, because the compiler
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 06:47:03 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:24:46 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 14:09 Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
code
interface Interface {
Interface method();
}
class Class : Interface {
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:04:27 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 06:47:03 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:24:46 -0400, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 14:09 Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
code
Am 29.08.2011, 22:24 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com:
It's _not_ overriding. It's implementing an interface method. Those are
two
totally different things. And I think that it's horrible that Java
considers
implementing an interface method as overriding it. I'd _hate_ to
But it's definitely true that allowing overloads between templatized and
non-templatized functions would be an improvement. Hopefully, we get it
at some point.
In the end this is not an enhancement but it is *required* to do proper
D2 style operator overloading.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:22 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.v0zckubyeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
My opinion is that static methods should *not* be callable from an
instance, you should need
On 08/29/2011 10:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 14:09 Mariusz Gliwiński wrote:
code
interface Interface {
Interface method();
}
class Class : Interface {
override Class method() {}
}
/code
DMD complains it isn't overriding. How should it be according to
On 29-08-2011 22:22, Walter Bright wrote:
For the latest dmd,
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/1193f7828b444056c943742daae0a5ccf262272e
,
I've implemented the ability to disable default initialization. This
makes it practical to implement a library based NotNull type without
On 08/30/2011 01:48 PM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 29.08.2011, 22:24 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com:
It's _not_ overriding. It's implementing an interface method. Those
are two
totally different things. And I think that it's horrible that Java
considers
implementing an interface
On 08/30/2011 07:13 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
If there already is an implementation, it overrides it, otherwise it
implements it.
That's pretty much it. The entire purpose of the override keyword is
to prevent silent bugs of two kinds:
(a) User thinks she hooks a specific method but instead
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:53:15 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:22 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.v0zckubyeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
My opinion is
Am 29.08.2011, 22:24 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 12:53 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 29-08-2011 19:47, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 07:44 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
My opinion is that static methods should *not* be
I'm not sure what I am talking about (I have never used interfaces so
far), but if a interface developper adds a method foo, she expects every
developper of derived class to get an error because they don't implement
this new method yet.
But if a derived class unfortunately already has a method
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
I like Ctrl-ScrollWheel. Don't know if that's cross-browser, though. Works
on FF. The font size on that page is pretty small though, I had to increase
it a few clicks. But it was a nice change from so many of the newer sites
these days that have everything cranked up
On 2011-08-30 14:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:53:15 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:22 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:19:27 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-08-30 14:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:53:15 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:22 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
On 2011-08-30 16:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It's different. 3345 is asking to allow overloading of static and
instance methods with the same signature. The new bug is asking to
*require* using the type when accessing static methods/fields.
You might notice in the bug report that I mention
I want to point out the following bug in the example, because it's *such* a
common problem and, in my opinion, one of D's warts:
Walter Bright wrote:
this(P q)
{
assert(q);
p = q;
}
Try
auto d = NotNull!Object(null);
you'll get a segmentation fault and not
On 08/30/2011 04:58 PM, Christian Kamm wrote:
I want to point out the following bug in the example, because it's *such* a
common problem and, in my opinion, one of D's warts:
Walter Bright wrote:
this(P q)
{
assert(q);
p = q;
}
Try
auto d =
I've found a nice paper, 99.44% pure: Useful Abstractions in Specifications,
By Mike Barnett, David A. Naumann, Wolfram Schulte, Qi Sun (Microsoft Research,
2004):
http://www.cs.ru.nl/ftfjp/2004/Purity.pdf
It presents yet another kind of purity, observational purity, such methods
are meant to
On 8/30/11 7:34 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:53:15 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:22 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
On 8/30/11 7:40 AM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 29.08.2011, 22:24 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 12:53 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 29-08-2011 19:47, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 07:44 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
My opinion is
On 30-08-2011 17:31, bearophile wrote:
I've found a nice paper, 99.44% pure: Useful Abstractions in Specifications,
By Mike Barnett, David A. Naumann, Wolfram Schulte, Qi Sun (Microsoft Research, 2004):
http://www.cs.ru.nl/ftfjp/2004/Purity.pdf
It presents yet another kind of purity,
On 8/30/11 7:45 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:26:17 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:13 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
If there already is an implementation, it overrides it, otherwise it
implements it.
That's pretty much it.
The fact that the code compile only if all interface methods are
implemented does not imply that the programmer knows which method he
implemented hooks and which does not.
On 08/30/2011 05:44 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 30-08-2011 17:31, bearophile wrote:
I've found a nice paper, 99.44% pure: Useful Abstractions in
Specifications, By Mike Barnett, David A. Naumann, Wolfram Schulte,
Qi Sun (Microsoft Research, 2004):
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:38:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 8/30/11 7:34 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:53:15 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:22 -0400, Daniel Murphy
On 08/30/2011 05:49 PM, Christophe wrote:
The fact that the code compile only if all interface methods are
implemented does not imply that the programmer knows which method he
implemented hooks and which does not.
interface I{
void method();
}
class C: I{
void method() {} // not a
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:58:43 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 05:49 PM, Christophe wrote:
The fact that the code compile only if all interface methods are
implemented does not imply that the programmer knows which method he
implemented hooks and which does not.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:40:40 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 8/30/11 7:45 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:26:17 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:13 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
If there
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:58:20 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:38:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
We don't have as big a problem in D due to introspection. I fear,
however, that we'll need to add static if
On 08/30/2011 06:00 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:58:43 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 05:49 PM, Christophe wrote:
The fact that the code compile only if all interface methods are
implemented does not imply that the programmer knows which
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:18:32 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:00 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:58:43 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 08/30/2011 05:49 PM, Christophe wrote:
The fact that the code compile only if all
Alex Rønne Petersen:
This is great! I've often had to use classes where I wanted to use
structs because the default state would result in bad behavior.
Currently NotNull is broken, it's a trap. It doesn't really do what I want, and
maybe it does something else that I don't need. Let's see if
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:58:20 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:38:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 8/30/11 7:34 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
We don't have as big a problem in D due to introspection. I
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
struct S2
{
static void foo();
alias foo this.foo;
}
or
alias typeof(this).foo foo;
On 8/30/11 11:06 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
When I write code that derives from a base class, I'm declaring with
override that I want to implement the base class' function.
When I write code that implements an interface, I'm declaring with
override that I want to implement the interface's
On 8/30/11 10:49 AM, Christophe wrote:
The fact that the code compile only if all interface methods are
implemented does not imply that the programmer knows which method he
implemented hooks and which does not.
It does mean the programmer implemented all methods of the interface.
Andrei
On 8/29/11 7:49 PM, bearophile wrote:
[snip]
void main() {
auto a = new nFoo[5];
bar(a[0]);
}
Ah, that reminds me. The introduction of @disable requires the
introduction of array-with-constructor syntax that has long been
proposed to both C++ and D:
new Type[n](argument1,
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 8/30/11 11:06 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
When I write code that derives from a base class, I'm declaring with
override that I want to implement the base class' function.
When I write code
On 08/30/2011 06:23 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:18:32 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:00 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:58:43 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 08/30/2011 05:49 PM, Christophe wrote:
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 09:35 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/29/11 7:49 PM, bearophile wrote:
[snip]
void main() {
auto a = new nFoo[5];
bar(a[0]);
}
Ah, that reminds me. The introduction of @disable requires the
introduction of array-with-constructor syntax that has
On 08/30/2011 06:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 8/30/11 11:06 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
When I write code that derives from a base class, I'm declaring with
override that I want to
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:55:30 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:23 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:18:32 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:00 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:58:43 -0400, Timon
Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote in message
news:j3j4m4$2l0u$1...@digitalmars.com...
And I am quite certain that what exactly is in the table is actually
decided at link time.
At object file generation time generally.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:16:58 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:06:02 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
I don't think that you can change a widely used interface into an
abstract class and not introduce annoyances much larger than
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:06:02 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 8/30/11 11:06 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
When I write code that
On 08/30/2011 07:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:55:30 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:23 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:18:32 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:00 PM, Steven
Den 29-08-2011 23:08, Andrei Alexandrescu skrev:
On 8/29/11 3:46 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
[snip]
I looked around and it seems getopt is a moderately commonly asked
feature for libcurl. However, since it hasn't been implemented for
years, you probably made the right call to not provide shadow
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:06 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 8/30/11 11:06 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
When I write code that derives from a
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:21:09 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:55:30 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:23 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:18:32 -0400, Timon
On 8/30/11 12:22 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
Walter suggested that I should write an article about using the wrapper.
I've now taken the first steps on writing such an article. I will have
to get the library API rock stable before I can finish it though.
I have a suggestion for you - write and test an
On 08/30/2011 07:16 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:06:02 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 8/30/11 11:06 AM,
Den 26-08-2011 14:38, Adam Ruppe skrev:
My pet feature request could do this too. User defined attributes
combined with a list of functions called by a function.
===
@custom(mysafe) void foo() {}
void bar() {}
@custom(mysafe) void main() {
foo();
bar();
}
CheckCustomSafety!(mysafe,
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:39:35 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:16 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:06:02 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:59 -0400,
On 8/30/11 12:41 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
Couldn't this be used for marking classes as serializable. Something
like this:
class Foo {
@custom(serialize) Cake theCake;
Bar cache;
}
SerializeCustom!(serialize, Foo);
template SerializeCustom(string attribute, alias cls) {
foreach (m;
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:15:48 +0300, Radu Toev wrote:
Ok, so far so good. We know that you have the librt library, and that it
was compiled with the symbols that the compiler is complaining about.
Could you copy the contents of your 'dmd.conf' file? If your setup is
pretty simple, there
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
It is a continuous source of surprise to me that even seasoned
programmers don't realize that this is an inefficient copy routine:
while (read(source, buffer))
write(target, buffer);
If the methods are synchronous and the
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:57 dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
It is a continuous source of surprise to me that even seasoned
programmers don't realize that this is an inefficient copy routine:
while (read(source, buffer))
Den 30-08-2011 19:38, Andrei Alexandrescu skrev:
On 8/30/11 12:22 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
Walter suggested that I should write an article about using the wrapper.
I've now taken the first steps on writing such an article. I will have
to get the library API rock stable before I can finish it though.
On 08/30/2011 07:29 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:21:09 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:55:30 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 08/30/2011 06:23 PM, Steven
On 08/30/2011 07:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
We could find cases like this all day.
Make I a class, and this problem also occurs.
Without the compiler having access to the *changes* it cannot be perfect
in detecting refactoring errors.
-Steve
Chances are that it will detect more
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:27:25 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
What I was saying is not that there is no specific layout, just that an
interface by itself does not need to be represented in the object file.
All interface vtbls are part of the classinfo of the implementing
classes.
== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article
std.file.copy is synchronous. Would the suggestion then be to change it to be
asynchronous or to create a second function (e.g. copyAsync) which does an
asynchrous copy?
- Jonathan M Davis
Probably just make it asynchronous
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:42 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
We could find cases like this all day.
Make I a class, and this problem also occurs.
Without the compiler having access to the *changes* it cannot be perfect
in
On 8/30/11 1:10 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
std.file.copy is synchronous. Would the suggestion then be to change it to be
asynchronous or to create a second function (e.g. copyAsync) which does an
asynchrous copy?
I think std.file.copy should do whatever the heck is best to copy a
file. As
On 08/30/2011 08:32 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:27:25 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
What I was saying is not that there is no specific layout, just that
an interface by itself does not need to be represented in the object
file. All interface vtbls are
On 08/30/2011 08:35 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:42 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
We could find cases like this all day.
Make I a class, and this problem also occurs.
Without the compiler having
On 8/30/11 1:21 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
Den 30-08-2011 19:38, Andrei Alexandrescu skrev:
On 8/30/11 12:22 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
Walter suggested that I should write an article about using the wrapper.
I've now taken the first steps on writing such an article. I will have
to get the library API rock
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:56:46 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 08:35 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:42 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
We could find cases like this all day.
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 13:48:10 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/30/11 1:10 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
std.file.copy is synchronous. Would the suggestion then be to change it
to be asynchronous or to create a second function (e.g. copyAsync)
which does an asynchrous copy?
I think
On Aug 27, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
After having used the D 2.0 programming language for a year now and having
completed 3 projects with it, I wrote a small article about the problems I
had with the D 2.0 programming language and what suggestions I have to
improve it.
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
On 8/30/11 1:10 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
std.file.copy is synchronous. Would the suggestion then be to change it to
be
asynchronous or to create a second function (e.g. copyAsync) which does an
asynchrous
On Aug 27, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
After having used the D 2.0 programming language for a year now and having
completed 3 projects with it, I wrote a small article about the problems I
had with the D 2.0 programming language and what suggestions I have to
improve it.
On 8/30/2011 11:59 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Unless the OS issues speculative reads (which I don't think it does for either
files or sockets), any time spent in write() is a net loss for reading speed.
Now, if write is buffered and the buffers are flushed asynchronously, calls to
write()
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:41:19 +0200, Simen Kjaeraas
simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:22:52 +0200, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
For the latest dmd,
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/1193f7828b444056c943742daae0a5ccf262272e
,
Personnally, I would like override to be used when implementing
interfaces too, because there is really some hooking happening (and
thus hijacking risks), regardless of the presence of a previous method
or not.
If the problem is that you may have a method witch overrides an abstract
class C
Am 30.08.2011, 20:48 Uhr, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
On 8/30/11 1:10 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
std.file.copy is synchronous. Would the suggestion then be to change it
to be
asynchronous or to create a second function (e.g. copyAsync) which does
an
== Quote from Sean Kelly (s...@invisibleduck.org)'s article
I really need to fix this. It's a pain though, for the reasons related
to the ones you mention in 5. Shared. A tid, for example, fronts a
message queue object that has some shared interface elements and some
unshared interface
Andrei Alexandrescu:
new Type[n](argument1, argument2, ..., argumentn)
I'd like those constructors to know what's their array index. But too much
magic (like using $) is better left to Perl language.
Bye,
bearophile
On 8/30/2011 7:58 AM, Christian Kamm wrote:
I want to point out the following bug in the example, because it's *such* a
common problem and, in my opinion, one of D's warts:
Walter Bright wrote:
this(P q)
{
assert(q);
p = q;
}
Try
auto d =
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/30/11 1:21 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
Den 30-08-2011 19:38, Andrei Alexandrescu skrev:
On 8/30/11 12:22 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
Walter suggested that I should write an article about using the
wrapper. I've now taken the first steps on writing such an
article. I will have
On 8/30/2011 1:06 PM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
Testing concludes that changing the length of the array indeed appends
structs to it, with no compile-time error. Should I file this in BugZilla?
Not yet. I'm not sure that using bugzilla for things under development is that
good an idea. Once it is
Am 30.08.2011, 21:56 Uhr, schrieb Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com:
On 8/30/2011 11:59 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Unless the OS issues speculative reads (which I don't think it does for
either
files or sockets), any time spent in write() is a net loss for reading
speed.
Now
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:35 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:42 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
We could find cases like this all day.
Make I a class, and this problem also occurs.
Without the
On 8/30/11 2:35 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
On 8/30/11 1:10 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
std.file.copy is synchronous. Would the suggestion then be to change it to be
asynchronous or to create a second function (e.g. copyAsync)
On 8/30/11 3:34 PM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 30.08.2011, 20:48 Uhr, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
On 8/30/11 1:10 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
std.file.copy is synchronous. Would the suggestion then be to change
it to be
asynchronous or to create a second function
On 8/30/11 4:11 PM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 30.08.2011, 21:56 Uhr, schrieb Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com:
On 8/30/2011 11:59 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Unless the OS issues speculative reads (which I don't think it does
for either
files or sockets), any time spent in write() is a
On 8/30/2011 8:31 AM, bearophile wrote:
Time ago I have suggested a trusted purity to allow the implementation of
pure function with memoization, but this observational purity seems better.
observational purity seems like another word for logical const. This has
been debated here many times.
Walter Bright:
observational purity seems like another word for logical const. This has
been debated here many times.
They show how to enforce observational purity. I don't remember people
discussing this here.
They use observational purity just for methods called by contracts, to find a
On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/30/11 1:21 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
I guess that e.g. incoming network buffers in the OS often makes the
shown copy routine faster than you would think i most cases. These
buffers stores the incoming network data asynchronously by
On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
This is an equation very easy to derive from first principles but many people
are very incredulous about it. Consequently, many classic file copying
programs (including cp; I don't know about wget or curl) use the inefficient
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
