On 19.10.2011 10:41, Manu wrote:
I sent an email about this once before... but there was no real
response/discussion on the topic.
I just want to emphasise the importance of __restrict in optimising hot
code, and I'm curious to know if there has already been discussion on
the matter? Plans for
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:27:12 +0200, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 10/23/2011 07:19 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:10:08 +0200, Gor Gyolchanyan
gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I'm writing a general-purpose parser base, so i won't need it
for now.
And when i
On 23.10.2011 20:27, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:26:34 Don wrote:
On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:
It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for
distributed software, but whatever. At least it's usable. Personally,
my favorite is the
On 2011-10-23 20:54, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:48:03 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-10-23 18:03, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:06:42 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
[snip]
The module can generate RTTI for all types recursively
On 2011-10-23 22:14, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/21/2011 12:07 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
Walter: would it be okay if the compiler changes were published as a
GitHub
fork, or should we stick to patches?
I'd prefer as a patch, because forking the language can result in
another Phobos v Tango
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:56:34 +0200, Gor Gyolchanyan
gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. a general-purpose parsing tool would be great.
I don't think, that porting DMD's front-end is a good idea, because
it's far from being generic or modular.
We're gonna have to start from scratch.
On 2011-10-24 05:37, J Arrizza wrote:
Robert, I tried .stringof and it didn't quite get me as far as I wanted.
But the using a template got me much closer:
unittest
{
//create bob to kick off the whole thing
new Bob();
}
class Base
{
// find
Making a general-purpose parser is the secondary issue. The primary
issue is having a D parser.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Martin Nowak d...@dawgfoto.de wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:56:34 +0200, Gor Gyolchanyan
gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. a general-purpose parsing tool
I'd�never�seen�it�before�-�maybe�I�lead�a�sheltered�life.
GPL:�Free�as�in�Herpes
Doesn't�that�just�hit�the�nail�on�the�head.
No, not at all.
First, it isn't new: it's just the GPL is viral classic FUD, then
it's still incorrect: when you're ill from a viral infection, you
didn't choose it but a
renoX ren...@free.fr wrote in message
news:j8383e$1ul8$1...@digitalmars.com...
I'dneverseenitbefore-maybeIleadashelteredlife.
GPL:FreeasinHerpes
Doesn'tthatjusthitthenailonthehead.
What happened to the spaces?
No, not at all.
First, it isn't new: it's just the GPL is viral classic FUD,
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:37:33 +0100, Steve Teale
steve.te...@britseyeview.com wrote:
I'm sure that there's quite a long list, but two things I've bumped into
with using the MySQL protocol are:
1) We don't have SHA1 - I know there are people working on this. I've
done a version that is as
On 24/10/2011 01:46, Jesse Phillips wrote:
If discussion is needed about std.regex voting please bring it to this
thread as it is easier to tally votes.
I've not had a chance to have a good look through the code, but in my
very basic testing it did meet my performance and feature
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:34:59 +0200, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 10/21/2011 12:41 AM, so wrote:
You are right, i forgot about macros, Is it only this or is there
anything else?
The only other thing is what does one do about 'char' - make it a byte,
ubyte, or char D
Sean Kelly Wrote:
I don't like either one, because having the letters GPL in a license name
is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.
That's perfect. Corporations MUST pay.
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
Even ignoring the viral nature, the hundred page wall of legalese alone is
enough to make me very, very nervous about going anywhere near it (same goes
for creative commons). Not to mention the thousand different versions of
[L]GPL.
GPL is very simple: stay open
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:39:58 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 10/21/2011 4:14 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Making such a string type would be terribly inefficient. It would make
D
completely uncompetitive for processing strings.
I don't think it would. Do you
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:00:50 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-10-21 17:19, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:54:47 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-10-21 16:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This can still be done. If you have the compile-time
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:20:41 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 10/22/2011 2:21 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
Which operations do you believe would be less efficient?
All of the ones that don't require decoding, such as searching, would be
less efficient if decoding
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:32:15 -0400, Alexander aldem+dm...@nk7.net wrote:
Hi,
I've the code (see below) which produces an exception (SyncException
Unable to wait for condition)
unless synchronized is used when waiting on condition (Fedora Linux,
32 bit, DMD 2.055).
Do I do something
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:48:51 -0400, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:23:17 -0400, Daniel Gibson
metalcae...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 21.10.2011 21:07, schrieb Vladimir Panteleev:
Hi,
Igor Stepanov has created a patch for DMD and Druntime which adds RTTI
information
Hi,
Is there any way to count the amount of passed/failed unit tests in a
module or a program as a whole? From what I can see, druntime simply
invokes a function on each module which triggers all actual tests. If
this is all the information that is available, I guess it's impossible,
but I'm
On 2011-10-24 15:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:00:50 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-10-21 17:19, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:54:47 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-10-21 16:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Chante Wrote:
While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge to
do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a
potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:33:52 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 10/23/2011 4:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me that being business friendly has become a
phrase for allows business to steal FOSS work for profit and conned
the FOSS community into
You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking about your
users?
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote:
Chante Wrote:
While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge
to
do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a
potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for
Le 24/10/2011 16:20, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:48:51 -0400, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:23:17 -0400, Daniel Gibson
metalcae...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 21.10.2011 21:07, schrieb Vladimir Panteleev:
Hi,
Igor Stepanov has created a
core.runtime allows a user-supplied unittest runner. Never used it, but
check out
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/core_runtime.html#moduleUnitTester
Justin
Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
Hi,
Is there any way to count the amount of passed/failed unit tests in a
module or a program as
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:30:02 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-10-23 20:54, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:48:03 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-10-23 18:03, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:06:42 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:18:34 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 24/10/2011 16:20, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:48:51 -0400, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:23:17 -0400, Daniel Gibson
metalcae...@gmail.com wrote:
Am
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:18:34 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Well, if the compile time reflection is good enough, you can do this
without any runtime reflexion support in the compiler, just using a lib.
Why not support this option ?
Some of us are:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:02:24 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:20:41 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 10/22/2011 2:21 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
Which operations do you believe would be less efficient?
All of the ones
On Monday, October 24, 2011 17:58:15 Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:02:24 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:20:41 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 10/22/2011 2:21 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
Which
A-yup.
--
Simen
It's a noble goal, and I suspect the software industry is trending in this
direction, but in the interim it's impeding progress. Though I'm sure some
would say this is a worthwhile sacrifice for the potential benefit.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Kagamin s...@here.lot
I think software patents will be eliminated before too terribly long. I've
read some detailed articles on patents and copyright, and the conclusion was
basically what you've said. Copyright has helped innovation while patents have
hampered it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:54
On 2011-10-24 17:37, Robert Jacques wrote:
I'm sorry if I've come across that way. I'm well aware with the reasons
for wanting access to private methods/fields via reflection and have
mentioned them in previous posts. What I've tried to point out is very
eloquently stated by fig. 6.3 on page 204
Boom, working version on Windows:
http://codepad.org/cLYFwRin
For Linux have a look at core.runtime, in particular the
runModuleUnitTests function.
I didn't even know we could do this. Pretty neat!
I'm not sure why it just stops after the first failing unittest
though. What is the point of that 'failed' counter?
Yes.
--
Mike Wey
Ok I can see why, ModuleInfo.unitTest just returns a pointer to a
function that calls all unittests on its own. That's not very
flexible.
On 21.10.2011 06:06, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It's this very problem that leads some people to argue that string should be
its own type which holds an array of code units (which can be accessed when
needed) rather than doing what we do now where we try and treat a string as
both an array of chars
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:58:15 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas
simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:02:24 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:20:41 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 10/22/2011 2:21 AM, Peter Alexander
On 10/24/2011 05:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Meh, use of the term FUD itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just an
analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant to
hold up to being picked apart by all the little details. It's close enough
as an analogy.
It's
Hi, All!
Is it possible to develop software on D in specification driven manner?
In specification driven development module specification is primary
and module implementation is derivative from module specification
(implementation skeleton cat be generated from specification) . So, at
first we
Am 24.10.2011 01:59, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 10/23/2011 2:56 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary
On Monday, October 24, 2011 11:23 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I'm not sure why it just stops after the first failing unittest
though. What is the point of that 'failed' counter?
It's a long standing issue that when one unit test fails within a module, no
more within that module are run (though
On 24.10.2011 23:41, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:58:15 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas
simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:02:24 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:20:41 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com
Am 24.10.2011 17:37, schrieb Robert Jacques:
That's a very heavy price to pay, just
from a program maintenance perspective. And if you consider someone
writing medical or financial software, the privacy concerns of exposing
private variable to all become very real.
I don't think marking a
Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:j822kv$7jf$2...@digitalmars.com...
I've never read a job description that said we want a programmer that
has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either.
While such a concept may be
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:18:57 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24.10.2011 23:41, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:58:15 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas
simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:02:24 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com
Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote in message
news:j83tie$abu$1...@digitalmars.com...
You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking about
your users?
That's just backwards, GPL *limits* user rights. For instance,
Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org wrote in message
news:j84fli$1it5$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 10/24/2011 05:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Meh, use of the term FUD itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just
an
analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant
to
On 10/24/2011 7:02 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:20:41 -0400, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
On 10/22/2011 2:21 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
Which operations do you believe would be less efficient?
All of the ones that don't require decoding, such as
Alexey Veselovsky:
Is it possible to develop software on D in specification driven manner?
This is not how you normally write D code. Maybe there are ways to do this any
way, but they are not native.
So, at
first we write module specification. After that we wrote module
implementation.
Is this a bug, or is my understanding of shared/synchronized still broken:
module test;
synchronized class Bob {
private:
int _i;
invariant() { // test.d(7): Error: function test.Bob.__invariant () shared
is not callable using argument types ()
assert(_i == 5);
}
public:
this() {
_i = 5;
}
On 10/24/2011 1:52 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Call me ludicrous, but is this really what we want to push on someone as a
unicode-aware language?
There are different levels of Unicode support. D operates at the most basic
level (forgot what it is called) where only recognition of the
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:27:46 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 10/24/2011 7:02 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:20:41 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
On 10/22/2011 2:21 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
Which operations do
On 10/24/2011 1:02 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Ok, this kinda makes sense, but I guess that having been exposed to the
GPL'ed version wouldn't have made the deal impossible, just harder?
Right - not impossible, just harder.
(Couldn't they just compare the code or something?)
At the rates
D modules are a single file, normally they are not meant to be split in
specification and implementation parts.
Hm... It is possible to split this single file to specification and
implementation part (in single file, not split to 2 different files)?
Like in Haskell for example or Object
On 10/24/2011 11:27 PM, bearophile wrote:
Alexey Veselovsky:
Is it possible to develop software on D in specification driven manner?
This is not how you normally write D code. Maybe there are ways to do this any
way, but they are not native.
D has built-in unit test and DbC facilities.
On 10/24/2011 10:52 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:18:57 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24.10.2011 23:41, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:58:15 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas
simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011
On 10/25/2011 12:07 AM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
D modules are a single file, normally they are not meant to be split in
specification and implementation parts.
Hm... It is possible to split this single file to specification and
implementation part (in single file, not split to 2 different
On 25.10.2011 0:52, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:18:57 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24.10.2011 23:41, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:58:15 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas
simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:02:24
My understanding is that this:
module test2;
synchronized abstract class Bob {
private:
int _i = 2;
public:
@property
int i() {
return _i;
}
}
synchronized class Bill : Bob {
public:
@property
int thing() {
return i;
}
}
should be the same as this:
module test2;
On 25.10.2011 2:34, Andrew Wiley wrote:
My understanding is that this:
module test2;
synchronized abstract class Bob {
private:
int _i = 2;
public:
@property
int i() {
return _i;
}
}
synchronized class Bill : Bob {
public:
@property
int thing() {
return i;
}
}
should be the
Hm... It is possible to split this single file to specification and
implementation part (in single file, not split to 2 different files)?
Like in Haskell for example or Object Pascal.
You could maybe put contracts on interface methods and then implement those
interfaces (even from different
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
When waiting on a condition, you must have its associative mutex locked, or
Bad Things could happen. You should also have the mutex locked when
signaling the condition, but I don't think that's an absolute requirement.
The key
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:41:57 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Plus, a combining character (such as an umlaut or accent) is part of a
character, but may be a separate code point.
If this is correct (and it is), then decoding to dchar is simply not
enough.
You seem to
On 2011-10-24 21:47:15 +, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com said:
What if the source character is encoded differently than the search
string? This is basic unicode stuff. See my example with fiancé.
The more I think about it, the more I think it should work like this:
just like
https://github.com/pszturmaj/phobos/tree/master/std/crypto
This is some early work on std.crypto proposal. Currently only MD5, HMAC
and all SHA family functions (excluding SHA0 which is very old, broken
and no longer in use). I plan to add other crypto primitives later.
I know about one SHA1
I wanted to thank the D community for getting us involved in GSoC and
giving me the opportunity to attend the Mentor Summit, which was this
weekend. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that most hardcore
programmers have at least heard of D by now, at least if the Mentor
Summit was a
Yes.
Am 24.10.2011, 09:55 Uhr, schrieb Gor Gyolchanyan
gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com:
Making a general-purpose parser is the secondary issue. The primary
issue is having a D parser.
I feel like we should make a list of feature that everyone wants the
parser to support and go the better safe than
On 10/23/2011 8:44 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
The review period is up. It is time to take a vote.
Some minor changes have been made, namely to the documentation. And also
dot (.) will no longer be matching new line characters as specified here:
http://www.regular-expressions.info/dot.html
Am 22.10.2011, 21:05 Uhr, schrieb Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com:
Definitely. How about adding an empty property + opCast to bool, with
that you'd get:
if(!re)
{
//create re
}
It is nice that you *can* do this,
and a bit more verbose:
if(re.empty)
{
//create re
}
but I prefer
On 10/24/2011 5:42 PM, dsimcha wrote:
I got the impression that D is not being used partly because of the obvious
reasons (lack of libraries, legacy code in other languages) but also partly
because most people, even if they've heard of it, don't know what its most
important features/benefits
On 10/24/2011 9:12 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
You're right, I've been recently wrestling with the elevator pitch thing
for D. I know we need one. Bartosz has suggested Systems programming
safe and easy.
I think that might be a little too non-technical, though. I think we
need to highlight a
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/24/2011 5:42 PM, dsimcha wrote:
I got the impression that D is not being used partly because of the obvious
reasons (lack of libraries, legacy code in other languages) but also partly
because most people, even if they've heard of it, don't
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:08:50 +0200, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2011 11:23 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I'm not sure why it just stops after the first failing unittest
though. What is the point of that 'failed' counter?
It's a long standing issue that when
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
I wanted to thank the D community for getting us involved in GSoC and
giving me the opportunity to attend the Mentor Summit, which was this
weekend. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that most hardcore
programmers have at
Am 22.10.2011, 04:33 Uhr, schrieb Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com:
On 10/21/2011 4:32 PM, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
The main problem with this approach is how to support different
versions of
a library, or of OS. It quickly becomes
Am 21.10.2011, 10:32 Uhr, schrieb Gor Gyolchanyan
gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com:
That's ALL you can do in C. fill structs and call functions
(fundamental type manipulation doesn't count).
My personal research shows the following use cases of C macros (sorted
by popularity in descending order):
Am 14.09.2011, 18:57 Uhr, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:50:25 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 09/14/2011 04:08 PM, Robert McGinley wrote:
Hey all,
Mostly as an exercise I'm considering writing an ArrayList, AVL tree,
and possible
struct Signal(Types...)
{
alias void delegate(Types) DG;
void add(DG dg)
{
dgs ~= dg;
}
DG[] dgs;
}
struct Workaround(alias DG)
{
void add(typeof(DG) dg)
{
dgs ~= dg;
}
typeof(DG)[] dgs;
}
void main()
{
Signal!(int) foo; // ok
Let me backtrack that real fast, my workaround doesn't even work:
class Foo
{
Signal!( (ref int){} ) x;
}
void main()
{}
Error: delegate test.Foo.__dgliteral1 function literals cannot be class members
Well now I'm really desperate. :/
And look, here they even get lost by ParameterTypeTuple:
import std.traits;
class Foo(Types...)
{
alias void delegate(Types) DG;
DG dg;
}
void test(ref int, ref int) { }
void main()
{
auto foo = new Foo!(ParameterTypeTuple!test);
foo.dg = (ref int, ref int) { };
}
Error:
On 10/24/2011 6:52 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/24/2011 5:42 PM, dsimcha wrote:
I got the impression that D is not being used partly because of the obvious
reasons (lack of libraries, legacy code in other languages) but also partly
because most
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:10:49 +0200, Piotr Szturmaj bncr...@jadamspam.pl
wrote:
https://github.com/pszturmaj/phobos/tree/master/std/crypto
This is some early work on std.crypto proposal. Currently only MD5, HMAC
and all SHA family functions (excluding SHA0 which is very old, broken
and no
Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote in message
news:j83tbq$a12$1...@digitalmars.com...
Chante Wrote:
While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge
to
do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as
a
potential cure for the current state of affairs
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:j84kee$1vk5$1...@digitalmars.com...
Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote in message
news:j83tie$abu$1...@digitalmars.com...
You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:34:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 24.10.2011 17:37, schrieb Robert Jacques:
That's a very heavy price to pay, just
from a program maintenance perspective. And if you consider someone
writing medical or financial software, the privacy concerns of
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote:
Chante Wrote:
While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
knowledge to
do so), elimination of
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:j84ibc$1l0g$3...@digitalmars.com...
Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:j822kv$7jf$2...@digitalmars.com...
I've never read a job description that said we want a programmer
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Marco Leise marco.le...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 14.09.2011, 18:57 Uhr, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:50:25 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 09/14/2011 04:08 PM, Robert McGinley wrote:
Hey all,
Mostly as
renoX ren...@free.fr wrote in message
news:j8383e$1ul8$1...@digitalmars.com...
I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
GPL: Free as in Herpes
Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
No, not at all.
First, it isn't new: it's just the GPL is viral classic FUD,
Not that
It sure looks like a bug.
I think the reason for this error is, that the call site of the
invariant (whatever it could be) is not shared and nothing is done to
transfer the data.
Invariant is supposed to be pure, IMO.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Andrew Wiley wiley.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:38:12 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2011-10-24 17:37, Robert Jacques wrote:
I'm sorry if I've come across that way. I'm well aware with the reasons
for wanting access to private methods/fields via reflection and have
mentioned them in previous posts. What
On 23.10.2011 17:46, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 23.10.2011 11:28, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
On 22.10.2011 21:05, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 22.10.2011 20:56, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
I haven't followed the discussion closely, and I cannot really comment
on the core regex functionality, but I
This is typeof(super) problem.
When typeof(this) has some qualifiers (e.g. const, immutable, shared,
...), typeof(super) should have same qualifiers.
I filed this issue into bugzilla.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6848
Kenji Hara
2011/10/25 Andrew Wiley
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
