Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jje2cg$27tg$1...@digitalmars.com...
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:jje0er$24mb$1...@digitalmars.com...
This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary
compatibility:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495
Walter:
While I don't think we need to worry so much at the moment about breaking
binary
compatibility with new D releases, we do have a big problem with breaking
source
code compatibility.
This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.
D will naturally
On 10-03-2012 00:14, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:46:24PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 09-03-2012 23:32, Walter Bright wrote:
This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary compatibility:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495
While I don't think we need to
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.comwrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:41:01 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'll say I *don't* agree with the rejection of aliases on principle --
aliases can be extremely useful/helpful, and they cost literally nothing
(the
On 03/10/2012 12:09 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Nick Sabalauskya@a.a wrote in message
news:jje2cg$27tg$1...@digitalmars.com...
Walter Brightnewshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:jje0er$24mb$1...@digitalmars.com...
This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary
On 03/10/2012 12:02 AM, Manfred Nowak wrote:
Manu wrote:
I'm just talking about the ABI for returning multiple values, not
chaining
Does this mean, that you want a special type of function? For example
this would be disallowed statement: `auto result= f( g( parameters));',
if `f' and `g' are
On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:08:34 Brad Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.comwrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:41:01 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'll say I *don't* agree with the rejection of aliases on principle --
aliases can be extremely
On Friday, March 09, 2012 15:14:39 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:46:24PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 09-03-2012 23:32, Walter Bright wrote:
This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary
compatibility:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495
While I
On 3/9/12 8:30 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
As may serialization library Orange already does:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18386187/orange_docs/orange.serialization.Serializable.html
Look for NonSerialized.
Saw that after posting. Cool!
Andrei
P.S. Please don't overquote, you systematically do so.
On 3/9/12 10:16 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
There are two parts, syntax and semantics.
Semantics:
D is already able to express those:
template Tuple(T...){alias T Tuple;} // not the same as std.typecons.Tuple!
// function with multiple return values:
Tuple!(int,double) foo(int a, double b){
On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:16:56 Brad Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.comwrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:41:01 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'll say I *don't* agree with the rejection of aliases on principle --
aliases can be extremely
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.comwrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:08:34 Brad Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:41:01 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'll say I
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:16:56 -0500, Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.comwrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:41:01 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'll say I *don't* agree with the rejection of aliases on principle --
aliases
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:23:17 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/9/12 8:30 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
As may serialization library Orange already does:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18386187/orange_docs/orange.serialization.Serializable.html
Look for
On Friday, March 09, 2012 18:39:25 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I want to stress again the difference between C++'s namespaces, and D's
module import mechanism. In C++, you *deliberately* pull a namespace into
your scope (and usually only in the implementation file, which doesn't
affect any
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.comwrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 18:39:25 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I want to stress again the difference between C++'s namespaces, and D's
module import mechanism. In C++, you *deliberately* pull a namespace into
your
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:14:39 -0500, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:46:24PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 09-03-2012 23:32, Walter Bright wrote:
This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary
compatibility:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:30:11PM -0700, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.comwrote:
[...]
I don't know what the current state of UFCS is. I know that Kenji
has been working on it and that at least some portion of it has been
checked in,
Jonathan M Davis:
I don't know what the current state of UFCS is.
I have found a possible problem in it, and probably there are some missing
parts, but it's working well.
At first I didn't like it a lot because it's cheap syntax sugar that adds no
new power and gives programmers more freedom
On 03/10/2012 12:27 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/9/12 10:16 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
There are two parts, syntax and semantics.
Semantics:
D is already able to express those:
template Tuple(T...){alias T Tuple;} // not the same as
std.typecons.Tuple!
// function with multiple return
On 10 March 2012 01:17, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/10/2012 12:02 AM, Manfred Nowak wrote:
Manu wrote:
I'm just talking about the ABI for returning multiple values, not
chaining
Does this mean, that you want a special type of function? For example
this would be disallowed
Linus would probably hate D just as much as he hates C++. :p
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 06:50:50PM -0500, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
I don't know what the current state of UFCS is.
I have found a possible problem in it, and probably there are some
missing parts, but it's working well.
I found that x.foo doesn't work, it needs to be x.foo().
What are you talking about?
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:02:35AM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Linus would probably hate D just as much as he hates C++. :p
Yeah... I can just imagine his eye scanning the description of D and
stopping right at the word GC, and immediately writing a flaming
vitriolic post to LKML about how a
Walter Bright wrote:
we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.
To me a breaking change is a change in the documentation, i.e. change
that narrows the validity of inputs, widens the validity of outputs,
disables side effects which are enabled or enables side effects which
are not
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking
changes.
Please remember this if someone proposes enforcing
@property by default.
The -property switch is a big mistake that breaks a
lot of code.
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking
changes.
Oh, and how do you intend to accomplish that with things like bug
314 still being open (and code relying on the buggy behavior),
and not even the language being
On 03/10/2012 01:00 AM, Manu wrote:
On 10 March 2012 01:17, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
mailto:timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/10/2012 12:02 AM, Manfred Nowak wrote:
Manu wrote:
I'm just talking about the ABI for returning multiple
values, not
On Friday, March 09, 2012 18:50:50 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
I don't know what the current state of UFCS is.
I have found a possible problem in it, and probably there are some missing
parts, but it's working well.
At first I didn't like it a lot because it's cheap syntax sugar
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:05:00 -0500, Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar
wrote:
What are you talking about?
Who are you talking to?
:)
Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense
for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:16:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
UFCS will give people more freedom and may help templates in
some cases, […]
Note aside: I think people tend to overestimate the amount of
generic code that becomes easier to write/extend with UFCS, as D,
in contrast to C++,
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 01:12:34 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking
changes.
Please remember this if someone proposes enforcing
@property by default.
The -property switch is a
On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:15:13 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:02:35AM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Linus would probably hate D just as much as he hates C++. :p
Yeah... I can just imagine his eye scanning the description of D and
stopping right at the word GC, and
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:12:34 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.
Please remember this if someone proposes enforcing
@property by default.
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 01:22:49 David Nadlinger wrote:
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:16:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
UFCS will give people more freedom and may help templates in
some cases, […]
Note aside: I think people tend to overestimate the amount of
generic code that
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 23:39:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
I want to stress again the difference between C++'s namespaces,
and D's module import mechanism. In C++, you *deliberately*
pull a namespace into your scope (and usually only in the
implementation file, which doesn't affect
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:12:34 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.
Please
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:25:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
As I understand it, it's like override, it's being phased in,
and it _will_ become the normal behavior.
A planned or inevitable big mistake that will break piles
of code in a painful way is still a big mistake that will
break
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:32:55PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 01:22:49 David Nadlinger wrote:
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:16:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
UFCS will give people more freedom and may help templates in
some cases, […]
[...]
So, it'll
On 03/10/2012 01:10 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 06:50:50PM -0500, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
I don't know what the current state of UFCS is.
I have found a possible problem in it, and probably there are some
missing parts, but it's working well.
I found that
On 19/02/2012 14:27, Stewart Gordon wrote:
snip
int opApply(int delegate(ref inout(T)) dg) inout;
But then I realised a potential ambiguity:
(a) the constancy is passed through to the delegate
(b) the delegate has an inout parameter in its own right
snip
Thinking about it, if we go with (a),
On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:40:37 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:12:34 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This is why we
On 03/10/2012 01:22 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:16:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
UFCS will give people more freedom and may help templates in
some cases, […]
Note aside: I think people tend to overestimate the amount of generic
code that becomes easier to
On 3/10/12, Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense
for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly
random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I
sometimes
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:43:35AM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/10/2012 01:10 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 06:50:50PM -0500, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
I don't know what the current state of UFCS is.
I have found a possible problem in it, and probably there are
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:40:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
(dons flame war proof suit)
[...]
I don't see what's there to flamewar about.
You're new...
:)
-Steve
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:44:20 -0500, Stewart Gordon smjg_1...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 19/02/2012 14:27, Stewart Gordon wrote:
snip
int opApply(int delegate(ref inout(T)) dg) inout;
But then I realised a potential ambiguity:
(a) the constancy is passed through to the delegate
(b) the delegate has
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:24:34PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:05:00 -0500, Ary Manzana
a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote:
What are you talking about?
Who are you talking to?
:)
Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no
offense for
I noticed that D doesn't support covariant 'out' parameters,
which breaks polymorphism that involves such functions, e.g.:
---
// these classes' foo method returns via return value
class A {A foo(){return new A;}}
class B : A {B foo(){return new B;}}
// these classes' foo method returns via out
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:51:12PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:40:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh
hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
(dons flame war proof suit)
[...]
I don't see what's there to
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:48:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
From the sounds of it, Adam thinks that it's bad
Indeed. I have an advantage here though: it is an
objective fact that -property breaks a lot of existing
D code.
We can (and have) argue(d) all day about what, if
any,
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:32:06 -0500, David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at
wrote:
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 23:39:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I want to stress again the difference between C++'s namespaces, and D's
module import mechanism. In C++, you *deliberately* pull a namespace
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:53:29 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/12, Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense
for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 23:50:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
At first I didn't like it a lot because it's cheap syntax sugar
that adds no new power and gives programmers more freedom to
write different-looking versions of the the same code (and this
is often bad).
What I like about is the
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:58:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:24:34PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no
offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the
newsgroup's
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:01:01PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/9/2012 1:54 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Still chugging away at implementing AA's in druntime proper, I reviewed
the code for methods that can be marked pure but ran into a major road
block: getHash() is not marked pure. That makes a
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 20:04:49 -0500, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:51:12PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:40:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh
hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:07:47PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:58:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh
hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:24:34PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no
offense
On 3/10/12, Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
I hope you realize I didn't mean it in a bad/condescending way :)
No problemo! I don't take things too seriously around this place (or
the internets in general).
But whose fault is it?
I'd say it's the technology's fault. A newsgroup
On 10 March 2012 02:10, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/10/2012 01:00 AM, Manu wrote:
On 10 March 2012 01:17, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
mailto:timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 03/10/2012 12:02 AM, Manfred Nowak wrote:
Manu wrote:
I'm just talking about the
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:05:38AM +0100, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
[...]
What I like about is the encapsulation benefits. You
don't have to know if the function is a method or an
external function, it just works.
External, non-friend (so separate module in D) functions
are often preferable to
On 3/9/2012 5:15 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I tried to make getHash() const pure nothrow @safe, but found that in
some places it calls toHash() which isn't marked const pure nothrow
@safe. So I fixed that as well, then found that toHash() calls
toString() which isn't pure, nothrow, nor @safe... and
After much use of the new NNTP reader I'd like to suggest a
change that I hope other users of Thread may also desire.
The software is set up with this kind of hierarchy
Group List
Message List
Message
There are three views, Basic, Thread, Horizontal-split. To
improve the
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 02:22:27 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
The Horizontal-split would no longer include all of the
descussions, only the one you are viewing.
Personally I don't like this idea, since the view mode is
supposed to mimic newsreader software. It'll also prevent being
able
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 03:22:26 Jesse Phillips wrote:
After much use of the new NNTP reader I'd like to suggest a
change that I hope other users of Thread may also desire.
The software is set up with this kind of hierarchy
Group List
Message List
Message
There are
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:22:26AM +0100, Jesse Phillips wrote:
After much use of the new NNTP reader I'd like to suggest a change
that I hope other users of Thread may also desire.
The software is set up with this kind of hierarchy
Group List
Message List
Message
There
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 23:32:58 +0100, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary
compatibility:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495
While I don't think we need to worry so much at the moment about
breaking binary
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:18:59 +0100, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 3/9/2012 5:15 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I tried to make getHash() const pure nothrow @safe, but found that in
some places it calls toHash() which isn't marked const pure nothrow
@safe. So I fixed that as
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:50:47 -0500, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
2) Web forum interfaces suck. I've yet to see one that doesn't.
http://forum.dlang.org/set?url=%2Fgroup%2Fdigitalmars%2EDsecret=ueonfyyrxqnhpkuddoazgroupviewmode=threaded
Best web forum interface I've ever used
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary
compatibility:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495
While I don't think we need to worry so much at the moment
about breaking binary compatibility with new D releases, we
10.03.2012 3:01, Adam D. Ruppe пишет:
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:48:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
From the sounds of it, Adam thinks that it's bad
Indeed. I have an advantage here though: it is an
objective fact that -property breaks a lot of existing
D code.
We can (and have)
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 03:33:42 UTC, Mantis wrote:
What should be the type of a?
int. I'm for using @property to disambiguate
in any case.
That's a clear benefit.
I'm against the strict enforcement where it
forces you to choose parens or no parens at
the declaration site (what
On 3/9/12 3:59 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Yes, but we wouldn't have needed it if the built-in one would have been
considered sufficient.
The goal is considering the language sufficient for implementing a
useful structure such as Tuple in a library. Same goes about associative
arrays.
-
On 3/9/12 4:24 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:05:00 -0500, Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar
wrote:
What are you talking about?
Who are you talking to?
:)
Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense
for picking on you Andrej), and couple
On 3/9/2012 4:02 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Linus would probably hate D just as much as he hates C++. :p
It's clear to me from Linus' postings that he would not be interested in D. And
that's ok. He's doing what works for him, and it's hard to argue with his
success at it.
On 3/9/12 4:10 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
(int, int) foo(int a, int b){return (a,b);}
assert(foo(foo(foo(foo(1,2==(1,2));
(int, int) goo(int a, int b, int c){return (a+b, c);}
assert(goo(foo(2,3),1) == (5,1));
This is a recipe for disaster because of the implicit expansion.
Consider
On 3/9/2012 2:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Do you have any specific ones in mind? There were a number of them to try and
make it so that names were more consistent with regards to camelcasing and the
like, but those changes have largely stopped (or at least are well into the
deprecation
On 3/9/2012 3:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Keep in mind, too, that Linux has decades of legacy and millions of users.
That's a *very* different situation from Phobos. Apples and oranges.
Linux has had a habit of not breaking existing code from decades ago. I think
that is one reason why it
On 3/9/2012 3:14 PM, bearophile wrote:
D will naturally progressively slow down the rhythm of its new breaking
changes, but even very old languages introduce some breaking changes (see
some of the changes in C++11),
What breaking changes are there in C++11, other than dumping export?
On 3/9/2012 4:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
The -property switch is a big mistake that breaks a
lot of code.
It was done as a switch to see how much it would break and if that was worth it.
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 04:34:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Linux has had a habit of not breaking existing code from
decades ago. I think that is one reason why it has millions of
users.
If you want to see someone who takes compatibility
seriously (and all the way to the bank), take a
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 04:40:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Yeah, the kernel is decent about it, but the rest of the
system sure as hell isn't.
Let me tie this into D. A couple weeks ago, I revived one of
my work D projects - about 30,000 lines of code - that was
dormant for about a year.
On 3/9/12 4:59 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I don't think we should make the default the most conflicting or
difficult to use method. For example, to say:
always import log using:
import log = std.log
Is not as good as just not having to say that (i.e. import std.log like
you would any
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:02:44 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Linus would probably hate D just as much as he hates C++. :p
Rather then using ones influence to make a better language (C) it
is much easier to bitch about attempts made by others.
On 3/9/12 5:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 23:50:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
At first I didn't like it a lot because it's cheap syntax sugar that
adds no new power and gives programmers more freedom to write
different-looking versions of the the same code (and this is
On 3/9/12 8:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/9/2012 3:14 PM, bearophile wrote:
D will naturally progressively slow down the rhythm of its new breaking
changes, but even very old languages introduce some breaking changes (see
some of the changes in C++11),
What breaking changes are there in
On 3/9/12 8:46 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
We might have a stable language, but if the library doesn't
do the same, we'll never be Windows.
I hear ya.
Andrei
On 3/9/12 8:40 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
(For example, take dmd out of the box on CentOS. Won't
work.)
Why? I have CentOS at work and it seems to work.
Andrei
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 05:15:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Why? I have CentOS at work and it seems to work.
My work server is CentOS 5.6 (32 bit), maybe it is this specific
version, but the fresh dmd always gives:
1) a libc version mismatch. I fix this by recompiling from source.
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:16:44 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/9/12 3:59 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Notably, there is no convenient unpacking syntax. Walter does not merge
the patches of Kenji Hara that would fix this because presumably he
fears it could get in
On 3/9/2012 7:21 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
Bottom-up instead of top-down?
both.
On 3/9/2012 8:40 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Windows though, even if you relied on bugs twenty
years ago, they bend over backward to keep your app
functioning. It is really an amazing feat they've
accomplished, both from technical and business
perspectives, in doing this while still moving
On 3/9/2012 9:14 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/9/12 8:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/9/2012 3:14 PM, bearophile wrote:
D will naturally progressively slow down the rhythm of its new breaking
changes, but even very old languages introduce some breaking changes (see
some of the changes
On Friday, March 09, 2012 21:54:28 Walter Bright wrote:
Deprecating exception specifications :o).
I don't think that broke any existing code, because there wasn't any :-)
Sadly, there's code that will break because of that where _I_ work. For a
while, they were recommended/required, because
On 3/9/2012 4:59 PM, Boscop wrote:
It is crucial for function subtyping, because functions are only contravariant
in their 'in' parameters, but covariant in their 'out' parameters and return
type.
Function subtyping matters not only in classes with methods that have 'out'
parameters but also
On 3/9/12 9:35 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:16:44 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 3/9/12 3:59 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Notably, there is no convenient unpacking syntax. Walter does not merge
the patches of Kenji Hara that would fix this
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:jjelk7$7fm$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 3/9/2012 3:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Keep in mind, too, that Linux has decades of legacy and millions of
users.
That's a *very* different situation from Phobos. Apples and oranges.
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:wirsowklisbhbkbuj...@forum.dlang.org...
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 04:40:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Yeah, the kernel is decent about it, but the rest of the
system sure as hell isn't.
Let me tie this into D. A couple weeks
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:44:59AM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:wirsowklisbhbkbuj...@forum.dlang.org...
[...]
We might have a stable language, but if the library doesn't do the
same, we'll never be Windows.
Really? D is a
101 - 200 of 286 matches
Mail list logo
