On Monday, April 30, 2012 01:41:45 bearophile wrote:
> Walter:
> > What's your list?
>
> This thread now has something like 240 answers (and probably few
> more will come), and despite some variability in the answers, we
> have seen several recurring patterns too. So what are the
> conclusions, ta
On 2012-04-29 20:08, Manu wrote:
package confuses me, it's poorly documented. What are the protections
between packages, sub-packages. Can parent packages see sub-package
contents? vice-versa?
As far as I know it works like this:
pack
|- pack1
|- foo.d
|- bar.d
|- pack2
Sorry, I managed to get myself confused here. What I meant to
say was that I think >> should do an arithmetic shift if the
operands are signed; unsigned shift otherwise.
It does arithmetic shift if the left operand is signed,
unsigned shift otherwise. This code:
void main()
{
int a = 0xfff
On 2012-04-29 19:03, David Nadlinger wrote:
Yes, but that requires the compiler to generate the return value »glue«
code for continue/break inside an opApply foreach. If foreach is a
library function and you pass an ordinary delegate, you have a problem
in the current language since you can't kn
On 2012-04-29 18:28, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/29/2012 04:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-04-28 22:43, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/28/2012 09:58 PM, foobar wrote:
It should be replaced by a standard compilation
API and the compiler should be able to use plugins/addons.
Are you serious?
Have
On 4/30/12, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> I believe DIP 4 is the proposal
>
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs
>
> But don't forget to check out DIP 5 too.
Well it says they're both superseeded by DIP 6 but DIP6 didn't
implement things DIP4 was talking about.DIP4 goes on to dis
On Monday, April 30, 2012 07:46:48 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 4/30/12, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 29, 2012 21:56:08 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >> I wonder if dmd (or rdmd) should have a mode where it *only* compiles
> >> unittest code (i.e., no main() -- the resulting exe just runs uni
On 4/30/12, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> I think the correct solution here is to use alias. (If that doesn't
> work, then it should be made to work..)
It probably will. Quote Andrei: "Yah, we should add that at some
point. Walter and I discussed about it and it's virtually approved.
But to be on the conse
On 4/30/12, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, April 29, 2012 21:56:08 H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> I wonder if dmd (or rdmd) should have a mode where it *only* compiles
>> unittest code (i.e., no main() -- the resulting exe just runs unittests
>> and nothing else).
For RDMD you can do:
version(unittes
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 07:07:53AM +0200, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 03:16:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 02:26:12PM +0200, David Nadlinger wrote:
> >>[…]
> >> - Built-in arrays and AAs: They are convenient to use, but as
> >>far as I can see the sing
On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 03:16:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 02:26:12PM +0200, David Nadlinger wrote:
[…]
- Built-in arrays and AAs: They are convenient to use, but as
far as
I can see the single biggest GC dependency in the language.
Why not
lower array and AA litera
On Monday, April 30, 2012 06:58:18 David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 01:08:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 29, 2012 17:50:48 Don wrote:
> >> * package. I have no idea how a failed Java experiment got
> >> incorporated
> >> into D.
> >
> > Really? In some cas
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 21:56:08 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> I wonder if dmd (or rdmd) should have a mode where it *only* compiles
> unittest code (i.e., no main() -- the resulting exe just runs unittests
> and nothing else).
It wouldn't make sense. It's nowhere near as bad as C++, but dmd has to
recom
On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 01:08:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 17:50:48 Don wrote:
* package. I have no idea how a failed Java experiment got
incorporated
into D.
Really? In some cases, it's indispensable. For instance, once
std.datetime has
been split up, it wil
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 05:16:55AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 30-04-2012 05:03, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >Also, unittest is just that: for _unit_ tests. If you start needing
> >an entire framework for them, then you're no longer talking about
> >_unit_ tests, you're talking about modul
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:47:24PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
[...]
> You misunderstood me (the sentence was not clear). I mean, you cannot
> catch kill and the trick mentioned int he link is linux specific.
> Obviously, the fact that you cannot catch kill isn't linux specific ;)
Ah, I see.
But real
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:26:40PM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 28-04-2012 22:43, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >with statements. They make code hard to read, and besides you can (or
> >should be able to) alias long expressions into a short identifier for
> >this purpose anyway.
>
> I don't
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 20:16:16 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 4/29/12, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
Next up is the issue of op-assign operations. In D, you can't
do:
obj.foo += 1;
obj.foo++;
while in C#, you can (it results in a get -> add 1 -> set and
get -> inc
-> set, etc).
It's g
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:57:58AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 30-04-2012 01:54, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> >On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 15:07:26 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> >>On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 14:40:38 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
[...]
> >>We'd still need a solution for continue
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:40:37PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
[...]
> * Do-while loops, how useful are those actually?
OK, that got me all riled up about looping constructs, and now I'm
provoked to rant:
Since the advent of structured programming, looping constructs have
always been somewhat b0
On 30-04-2012 05:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, April 30, 2012 05:20:21 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
Except we can't do:
@test
void myTest()
{
// ...
}
due to the current lack of annotations and discovery-based reflection. ;)
*hint hint...*
What would that buy you? That's what u
hello, first message here.
Just started learning about D
Looking to see if D can be used as 'System language for Grid
computing'
Specifically for building up distributed coordinated services
such as distributed File systems/etc.
One specific thing I am looking for is Clojure avout like
Software
On Monday, April 30, 2012 05:20:21 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> Except we can't do:
>
> @test
> void myTest()
> {
> // ...
> }
>
> due to the current lack of annotations and discovery-based reflection. ;)
>
> *hint hint...*
What would that buy you? That's what unittest blocks are for. Yes,
On Monday, April 30, 2012 05:12:27 Kapps wrote:
> On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 01:08:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 29, 2012 17:50:48 Don wrote:
> >> * package. I have no idea how a failed Java experiment got
> >> incorporated
> >> into D.
> >
> > Really? In some cases, it's i
On 4/29/2012 2:38 AM, Manu wrote:
I'm interested to know is whether using a new precise GC will guarantee ALL
unreferenced stuff will be cleaned on any given sweep.
The new hook put into the typeinfo will do precise collection for references
within GC allocated objects. For references that sit
On 30-04-2012 05:12, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 20:03:44 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:39:02PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
Le 29/04/2012 22:54, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
D unit tests were never really useful for anything beyond
single-library projects IMHO
On 30-04-2012 05:03, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:39:02PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
Le 29/04/2012 22:54, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
D unit tests were never really useful for anything beyond
single-library projects IMHO. They don't scale for large, real-world
application project
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 02:26:12PM +0200, David Nadlinger wrote:
[...]
> - Comma operator: Kill it with extreme prejudice, it is an
> anti-feature (allow it in for loop expressions if you really want to,
> but I think there are better solutions).
+1. The voice of reason.
[...]
> - HexString,
On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 01:08:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 17:50:48 Don wrote:
* package. I have no idea how a failed Java experiment got
incorporated
into D.
Really? In some cases, it's indispensable. For instance, once
std.datetime has
been split up, it wil
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 20:03:44 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:39:02PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
> > Le 29/04/2012 22:54, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
> > >D unit tests were never really useful for anything beyond
> > >single-library projects IMHO. They don't scale for large, real
On 30-04-2012 04:37, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:42:23PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 4/29/12, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
In principle I agree with you. But in practice this doesn't always
work. Take this for example: Prints "0" and "1" as expected. If we
now change "point" to
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:39:02PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
> Le 29/04/2012 22:54, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
> >D unit tests were never really useful for anything beyond
> >single-library projects IMHO. They don't scale for large, real-world
> >application projects with lots of libraries and exe
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:03:43AM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 29.04.2012 5:06, bearophile wrote:
[...]
> >Loops _must_ be fully efficient, they are a basic language construct,
> >this is very important. Even foreach() is sometimes not equally
> >efficient as a for() in some cases...
> >
>
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 03:06:53AM +0200, bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
>
> >* foreach_reverse is essentially redudant at this point (not to
> >mention
> >confusing if combined with delegates), since we have retro.
>
> retro() can't replace foreach_reverse until the front-end
> demonstrab
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 19:37:50 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:42:23PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > On 4/29/12, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > > In principle I agree with you. But in practice this doesn't always
> > > work. Take this for example: Prints "0" and "1" as expected.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:42:23PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 4/29/12, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > In principle I agree with you. But in practice this doesn't always
> > work. Take this for example: Prints "0" and "1" as expected. If we
> > now change "point" to a property like this: It wil
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:18:12PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
[...]
> C don't have out parameters as D have. C have pointer to do kind of
> out parameters, and D have pointers too, this is a non issue.
I argue that using 'out' vs. a pointer is a good thing, because it
clarifies intent. When you see a
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:40:03PM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 29-04-2012 00:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >Yeah, .sort is redundant, and besides shouldn't be an array
> >"property" to begin with.
[...]
> Let's not forget .reverse. Why these are properties (and .dup/.idup)
> is seriously
On 4/28/2012 9:01 PM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
>
>
> On 4/27/2012 7:30 AM, Andre Tampubolon wrote:
>> On 4/27/2012 1:30 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2012 2:40 PM, Andre Tampubolon wrote:
Rainer Schuetze wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 6:43 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Tue
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:21:19PM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 29-04-2012 00:49, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:39:03AM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
[...]
> >>- 'in' operator returning a pointer to the element.
> >
> >Yeah that one elicited a WAT from me when I first started
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 01:46:25AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:37:10 Timon Gehr wrote:
> > Well, what if the programmer "knows" that foo does not change 'aa',
> > but it actually does? Then there would possibly be a segmentation
> > fault. This implies that the 'i
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 15:21:10 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
No, I think it's way better that the DI generator outputs the
actually type instead of just "shared/auto" and the assignment.
In this case:
shared stdin = &_iob[0];
Should be generated as:
shared File stdin;
Anything to the rig
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-04-28 21:36, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
[...]
> >Another feature I'm curious about is .dup/.idup. It's basically
> >hardcoded for a couple of types, but why not instead use UFCS and
> >implement .dup/.idup in std.array as a free
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 01:23:17PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 04/29/2012 11:31 AM, foobar wrote:
> >On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 08:58:24 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
[...]
> >>It is not. For example, code that is only executed during CTFE does
> >>never have to behave gracefully if the input is ill-fo
On 04/30/12 02:33, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:40:10 +0200, Artur Skawina wrote:
>
>> On 04/28/12 22:02, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2012 12:36 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also there's mixin templates. What exactly is the difference between
mixin templates and reg
On 30-04-2012 02:40, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 28/04/2012 20:22, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. with statement (?). I kind of like it but bleh it's too boggy and it
doesn't seem to pull its weight. (pointers? class references? a lot of
stuff to go wrong) Fluent interfaces solve a good portion of its
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 17:50:48 Don wrote:
> * package. I have no idea how a failed Java experiment got incorporated
> into D.
Really? In some cases, it's indispensable. For instance, once std.datetime has
been split up, it will require it, or it would have duplicate a bunch of
implementation
On 28/04/2012 20:22, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. with statement (?). I kind of like it but bleh it's too boggy and it
doesn't seem to pull its weight. (pointers? class references? a lot of
stuff to go wrong) Fluent interfaces solve a good portion of its
benefits to be specific.
My primary use ca
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:40:10 +0200, Artur Skawina
wrote:
On 04/28/12 22:02, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/28/2012 12:36 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also there's mixin templates. What exactly is the difference between
mixin templates and regular templates?
A mixin template is instantiated in co
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 23:04:00 UTC, Manu wrote:
In some cases I'm comfortable with that type of fragmentation
(large
regularly sized resources), although that leads me to a gaping
hole in D's
allocation system...
Hmmm I see, also I was thinking... since we have TLS, couldn't we
abuse
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 15:07:26 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 14:40:38 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
foreach ([1, 2, 3, 4], (i) { writeln(i); });
The above already works today. If we can a bit syntax sugar
for delegates and inlinable delegates we could have this:
On 30-04-2012 01:54, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 15:07:26 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 14:40:38 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
foreach ([1, 2, 3, 4], (i) { writeln(i); });
The above already works today. If we can a bit syntax sugar for
delegates and
On 29/04/2012 19:08, Manu wrote:
current module/package
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_traits#packageName
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_traits#moduleName
--
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
Walter:
What's your list?
This thread now has something like 240 answers (and probably few
more will come), and despite some variability in the answers, we
have seen several recurring patterns too. So what are the
conclusions, take-home insights, and the to-do's to make
something in practi
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 21:06:10 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 29-04-2012 22:24, SomeDude wrote:
Ah ok. But I'm not sure what's wrong with the package
protection level
either, actually.
Yes, me neither. And I have found many cases in my code where
using it actually makes sense and h
On 30 April 2012 01:24, Tove wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 22:13:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> Is it technically possible to have a precise GC clean up all unreferenced
>> memory in one big pass?
>>
>
> yes, but unless it's also moving/compacting... one would suffer memory
> fragmentation... so
On 30-04-2012 00:08, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/29/2012 10:59 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 29-04-2012 14:26, David Nadlinger wrote:
- Unsigned right shift, but I can see how it can be useful (simply
underused?).
It's clear that arithmetic right shift is what the programmer usually
wants, an
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 22:13:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
Is it technically possible to have a precise GC clean up all
unreferenced
memory in one big pass?
yes, but unless it's also moving/compacting... one would suffer
memory fragmentation... so I would imagine TempAlloc is a better
fit?
Le 30/04/2012 00:03, Peter Alexander a écrit :
So, in short, all expressions have an implicit conversion to
'typeof(Expression) delegate()'.
Seems reasonable at first glance, although I get the feeling it will
have nasty edge cases. Implicit conversions generally do seem to cause
trouble.
Yes,
On 29 April 2012 16:53, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2012, at 2:38 AM, Manu wrote:
>
> On 28 April 2012 18:16, Peter Alexander wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 09:14:51 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 09:12:23 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
>>>
Real time guar
On 04/29/2012 10:59 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 29-04-2012 14:26, David Nadlinger wrote:
- Unsigned right shift, but I can see how it can be useful (simply
underused?).
It's clear that arithmetic right shift is what the programmer usually
wants, and yet, we use >> to denote what they don
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 21:23:41 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 19:19:51 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
What I forgot to mention:
- VersionCondition: Just provide a mechanism to map command
line flags to constants, probably in a magic »version«
namespace, and use static if (
On 29-04-2012 23:54, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 21:18:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Le 29/04/2012 03:06, bearophile a écrit :
Jonathan M Davis:
* foreach_reverse is essentially redudant at this point (not to mention
confusing if combined with delegates), since we have retro
On 29 April 2012 23:00, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 28-04-2012 23:18, SomeDude wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but core language AA are so useful it would be a MAJOR mistake to
>> remove them. In Python too, you could put the AA in the libraries. Yet
>> everybody uses the AA that are in the language.
>>
>>
So, in short, all expressions have an implicit conversion to
'typeof(Expression) delegate()'.
Seems reasonable at first glance, although I get the feeling it
will have nasty edge cases. Implicit conversions generally do
seem to cause trouble.
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 21:18:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Le 29/04/2012 03:06, bearophile a écrit :
Jonathan M Davis:
* foreach_reverse is essentially redudant at this point (not
to mention
confusing if combined with delegates), since we have retro.
retro() can't replace foreach_reverse un
OK, many people seems to want lazy to go.
it is understandable : the feature is broken. lazy imply computation
inside the function, but it is impossible to ensure anything about that
computation (is it pure ? is it nothrow ? is it @safe, etc . . .).
In fact, to be usefull, lazy need to be abl
On 04/29/2012 10:03 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 28-04-2012 23:41, Timon Gehr wrote:
As I understand it, the 'agreed upon' design is that
@property int foo() { return x; }
@property void foo(int v) { x = v; }
Would be completely equivalent to C#:
int foo { set{ x = value; }; get{ return
On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 19:58:03 UTC, foobar wrote:
* di files - a library should encapsulate all the info required
to use it. Java Jars, .Net assemblies and even old school;
Pascal
units all solved this long ago.
I strongly support this.
Le 29/04/2012 00:23, H. S. Teoh a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:16:15AM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
Le 28/04/2012 22:04, Andrea Fontana a écrit :
How can i catch kill signal to gracefully shutdown my app?
This can be used for other signals :
http://www.deadalnix.me/2012/03/24/get-an-except
Le 29/04/2012 22:54, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
D unit tests were never really useful for anything beyond single-library
projects IMHO. They don't scale for large, real-world application
projects with lots of libraries and executables.
+1 A good std.unittest + attributes is probably a bette
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 19:19:51 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 12:26:13 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
What I forgot to mention:
- VersionCondition: Just provide a mechanism to map command
line flags to constants, probably in a magic »version«
namespace, and use stat
Le 29/04/2012 03:06, bearophile a écrit :
Jonathan M Davis:
* foreach_reverse is essentially redudant at this point (not to mention
confusing if combined with delegates), since we have retro.
retro() can't replace foreach_reverse until the front-end
demonstrability produces asm code equally e
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 20:54:11 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
- unit tests
I would rather have them as a library.
D unit tests were never really useful for anything beyond
single-library projects IMHO. They don't scale for large,
real-world application projects with lots of libraries a
Le 29/04/2012 21:30, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
"deadalnix" wrote in message
news:jnhopd$gi3$1...@digitalmars.com...
- out arguments. We can return tuples, out argument is going backward in
history.
You can overload on out parameters. You can't overload on return type. So
without "out" maki
On 29-04-2012 22:16, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 4/29/12, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
Next up is the issue of op-assign operations. In D, you can't do:
obj.foo += 1;
obj.foo++;
while in C#, you can (it results in a get -> add 1 -> set and get -> inc
-> set, etc).
It's great to see another
On 29-04-2012 22:52, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 4/29/12, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
struct Foo {
auto opIn_r(string op)(int i) { return 1; }
}
Sorry that's wrong, should be:
struct Foo {
auto opIn_r(int i) { return 1; }
}
And then you get:
test.d(25): Error: function test.Foo.opIn_r (in
Le 29/04/2012 22:40, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
On 29-04-2012 00:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:58:19PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
[...]
- is is messed up. It is a massive hack and have to be rationalized.
As I said in another thread, the _functionality_ of various is()
expr
On 29-04-2012 16:40, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-04-28 20:47, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this question. The
idea was which features in D are redundant and/or do not add significant
value?
A couple already agreed upon ones are typedef and the cfloat
On 29-04-2012 22:24, SomeDude wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 18:47:11 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 18:39:49 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
What's wrong with packages ?
Nothing – this is about the »package« protection level, not packages. ;)
David
Ah ok. But I'm not sur
On 29-04-2012 21:19, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 12:26:13 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 18:48:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
What's your list?
My personal list of features I could easily live without – some of
these might be controversial, but
On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 23:41:29 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
But in D the main purpose of "pure" is not as optimization
tool, but more as a tool to enforce a better coding style,
that makes code understanding (and testing simpler), and helps
avoid some bugs, coming from using variables
On 29-04-2012 14:26, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 18:48:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
What's your list?
My personal list of features I could easily live without – some of these
might be controversial, but yes, I have written non-trivial amounts of
code in both D1 and D2:
Alex Rønne Petersen:
D unit tests were never really useful for anything beyond
single-library projects IMHO. They don't scale for large,
real-world application projects with lots of libraries and
executables.
I think D has to offers means to library writers to instrument
the built-in unit-t
Alex Rønne Petersen:
- lazy, I use it only for logging
lazy is horribly broken in many ways.<
Sometimes I use std.exception.enforce(), that uses lazy.
Bye,
bearophile
On 29-04-2012 08:31, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Am 28.04.2012 20:47, schrieb Walter Bright:
Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this question. The
idea was which features in D are redundant and/or do not add significant
value?
A couple already agreed upon ones are typedef and the cfloat,
On 29-04-2012 03:20, ponce wrote:
Le 28/04/2012 20:47, Walter Bright a écrit :
What's your list?
- builtin complex types (I don't _need_ be able to write "4 + 5i")
+1.
- builtin associative arrays
- some builtin properties like arr.sort
+1, and .reverse. I'm also against .dup and .idup b
On 4/29/12, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> struct Foo {
> auto opIn_r(string op)(int i) { return 1; }
> }
Sorry that's wrong, should be:
struct Foo {
auto opIn_r(int i) { return 1; }
}
And then you get:
test.d(25): Error: function test.Foo.opIn_r (int i) is not callable
using argument types (s
On 4/29/12, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> I hate to nitpick and all that, but opBinaryRight!"in" actually works
> now. ;)
Yes and then you get to have those nice template instantiation errors,
which make no sense at all:
struct Foo {
auto opIn_r(string op)(int i) { return 1; }
}
struct Bar {
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 20:00:27 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
Let's get a standard package manager that we either advocate on
dlang.org or include in the releases before we start talking
about reducing the amount of modules in Phobos.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to reduce the amo
On 29-04-2012 03:40, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 03:06:53 bearophile wrote:
* Increasingly, I don't like UFCS. I think that in most cases,
it complicates
code for little value. And I _really_ don't like how it results
in people
flipping chains of a(b(c(d(5 calls into so
On 29-04-2012 03:06, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
* foreach_reverse is essentially redudant at this point (not to mention
confusing if combined with delegates), since we have retro.
retro() can't replace foreach_reverse until the front-end
demonstrability produces asm code equally effi
On 29-04-2012 00:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:58:19PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:
[...]
- is is messed up. It is a massive hack and have to be rationalized.
As I said in another thread, the _functionality_ of various is()
expressions are very useful and should be kept. But th
On 29-04-2012 00:18, Manu wrote:
On 28 April 2012 21:47, Walter Bright mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com>> wrote:
Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this question.
The idea was which features in D are redundant and/or do not add
significant value?
A couple alread
On 29-04-2012 01:41, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 23:29:35 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Peter Alexander:
f(x) ---> x.f() is not progress in language design.
I used to think the same. But Haskell offers "." and $ to chain
functions and remove parentheses, F# has the |> pipe
On 29-04-2012 00:30, Manu wrote:
On 29 April 2012 00:42, Peter Alexander mailto:peter.alexander...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 18:48:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this
question. The idea was which feature
On 28-04-2012 23:59, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:42:31PM +0200, Peter Alexander wrote:
[...]
- UFCS. It's just sugar, but adds complexity.
On the contrary, it's a major helper for writing generic code. In my new
AA implementation, I use UFCS to provide a default toHash functio
On 28-04-2012 23:20, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 18:48:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
What's your list?
I think most the responses to this thread are insane.
But, there is one thing I don't think D needs: new.
I'm pretty sure it could be done in the library now
that we ha
On 28-04-2012 22:43, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:47:31AM -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this question.
The idea was which features in D are redundant and/or do not add
significant value?
A couple already agreed upon ones are typed
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 18:47:11 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 18:39:49 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
What's wrong with packages ?
Nothing – this is about the »package« protection level, not
packages. ;)
David
Ah ok. But I'm not sure what's wrong with the package prot
1 - 100 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
