On 2012-05-10 00:05, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:04:59PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Is there a unicode glyph for fist pump? :)
[...]
U+270A?
:-)
Haha :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Code (compile with dmd -m64):
import std.stdio;
struct S {
short[4] x;
this(short[4] args...) {
x[] = args[];
}
bool opEquals(in S s) const {
for (auto i=0; i < 4; i++) {
"Joseph Rushton Wakeling" wrote in message
news:mailman.500.1336605832.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On 10/05/12 01:14, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
>> So are you proposing that we rewrite the dmd backend with fresh code
>> that's not encumbered by the current license?
>
> I think there are a num
I don't think that any gui library belongs in phobos because there's
essentially no agreement about what cross-platform library is standard.
Python has something and as far as I can tell people are fine with that.
Andrei
You guys have no idea, how much its hurting D.
At my work place, we w
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:18:36PM -0700, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:12:53 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
> wrote:
[...]
> >Well, if that works for the PHBs, then it works for me (Hmm...Never
> >thought I'd say something like that ;) )
Beware the dark side! ;-)
> >Thinking about it mor
"Joseph Rushton Wakeling" wrote in message
news:mailman.476.1336601495.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On 09/05/12 23:38, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Especially if/when we finally get good support for ARM-based phones
>> and tablets (back in my day, we called them PDAs), as that would be
>>
On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:12:53 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.wd2prcc4707...@invictus.skynet.com...
I actually agree with you, im just telling you what I hear from PHB's.
I was just kinda rambling anyway ;) Not directed at any particular
poster.
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:24:48PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
> news:mailman.510.1336610145.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
[...]
> > You don't necessarily have to throw away the DI system; some people
> > may sleep better at night if their proprietary algo
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.wd2prcc4707...@invictus.skynet.com...
>
> I actually agree with you, im just telling you what I hear from PHB's.
>
I was just kinda rambling anyway ;) Not directed at any particular poster.
> We need some way to export the symbols without the underlying c
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 03:40:54 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
It's a crazy idea I know, but maybe we could, as a community,
buy the rights from Symantec. Blender was a close-source
program originally and the open-source community raised money
to buy the source code from the defunct compa
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 03:17:20 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 02:59:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
@inline anyone?
I find the @inline confusing, people could mistook it with a
force inline attribute.
Something like @compiletime would be more clear for the tool
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 03:35:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 22:15:23 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty
> much complete
> FUD.
The problem is, the damage is there a
On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:24:48 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
"H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
news:mailman.510.1336610145.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:06:24PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
There's no need for all that.
The whole point here is "Compile to some
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 22:15:23 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty much complete
> > FUD.
> The problem is, the damage is there and is real. It's like in those
> crazy situations - an allegation
On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:17:17 -0700, Michaël Larouche
wrote:
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 02:59:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/9/12 3:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
fi
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:15:23PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty much
> >complete FUD.
>
> The problem is, the damage is there and is real. It's like in those
> crazy situations - an all
On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty much complete FUD.
The problem is, the damage is there and is real. It's like in those
crazy situations - an allegation of harassment still affects a teacher's
career, even if there's a simp
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 02:59:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 5/9/12 3:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
first place. It is performance sensitive and open source.
We shoul
On 5/9/12 3:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
first place. It is performance sensitive and open source.
We should be using the actual sources for inlining, ctfe,
etc. anyway.
Let's
On 5/9/12 3:17 PM, Tove wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 May 2012 at 07:03:35 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
Cool! Thanks! I'l definitely check it out! I hope it's DDOCed :-D
I just invented an absolutely wicked way of using alloca() in the parent
context...
Yah, me too.
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/i1g
On 5/9/12 11:42 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Not at all - infact, I've had Matthias informing me every step of the
way where GCC has got to (a gentle hint that I'm being chased to
update the build package).
If you need his details, I'd be happy to pass them onto you and give
you a rundown of how the 4
"H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
news:mailman.510.1336610145.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:06:24PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> There's no need for all that.
>>
>> The whole point here is "Compile to some obfuscated form" right? So
>> just make/use a good code
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 01:08:34 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/05/12 00:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > But since that will never happen, it's a moot issue. It doesn't really
> > matter if we would have had 10 times as many people contributing (which I
> > very much doubt), Walter can't
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:32:34 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:16:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:04:14 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > > Dumb question: what prevents someone from rewriting dmd's backend
> > > with new code that isn't entangled by the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8075
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 01:06:31 UTC, Matt Peterson wrote:
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 00:16:52 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Is this possible/should it compile?
If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been
something that would've been useful in a ton of situations for
me...
voi
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 00:16:52 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
Is this possible/should it compile?
If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been
something that would've been useful in a ton of situations for
me...
void process(R)(R items, size_t maxCount = items.length)
{
}
Have
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 00:28:43 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 01:43, Brad Roberts wrote:
> If you're using ldc or gdc, you should develop agains the
> gdc/ldc provided
> druntime and phobos too.
No, that's a recipe for fragmenta
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:06:24PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
> news:mailman.489.1336603453.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
[...]
> > This is why I kept proposing that .di's should have zero
> > implementation. ZERO. No function bodies, no template bodies,
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:06:24 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
"H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
news:mailman.489.1336603453.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:17:41PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
My take, FWIW:
1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporatio
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:12:57 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.wd2beab6707...@apollo.hra.local...
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:17:41 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
My take, FWIW:
1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive
in
code
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/05/12 01:43, Brad Roberts wrote:
> > If you're using ldc or gdc, you should develop agains the gdc/ldc provided
> > druntime and phobos too.
>
> No, that's a recipe for fragmentation. Phobos should be developed in consort
> with the DMD
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:59:27AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/05/12 01:49, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> >How did you install it? That's the stumbling block for me.
>
> In my case, the easy way: it's available as a package in Ubuntu. :-)
[...]
Yeah, I use Debian, and apt-get install g
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:47:27AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/05/12 01:33, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> >Have you actually used them? I've tried and never got
> >far.
>
> Yes, but that's because right now they are playing perpetual
> catch-up with DMD. With the frontend stabilized, i
Is this possible/should it compile?
If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been
something that would've been useful in a ton of situations for
me...
void process(R)(R items, size_t maxCount = items.length)
{
}
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.wd2beab6707...@apollo.hra.local...
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:17:41 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
> wrote:
>
>> My take, FWIW:
>>
>> 1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive in
>> code-hiding (and even then, only the ones who release li
"H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
news:mailman.489.1336603453.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:17:41PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> My take, FWIW:
>>
>> 1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive
>> in code-hiding (and even then, only th
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:33:39AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:31:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >Right, so what's the reason behind not adopting gdc or ldc as the
> >reference compiler?
>
> Have you actually used them? I've tried and never got far.
>
> dmd just work
On 10/05/12 01:49, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
How did you install it? That's the stumbling block for me.
In my case, the easy way: it's available as a package in Ubuntu. :-)
Ubuntu 12.04 has GDC 4.6.3 in its repositories, 11.10 had 4.6.1 if I remember
correctly.
I haven't yet tried building it fr
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:49:42 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:47:38 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
GDC works extremely well for me in general, and also produces
significantly faster executables than DMD.
How did you install it? That's the stumbling block fo
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:47:38 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
GDC works extremely well for me in general, and also produces
significantly faster executables than DMD.
How did you install it? That's the stumbling block for me.
On 10/05/12 01:43, Brad Roberts wrote:
If you're using ldc or gdc, you should develop agains the gdc/ldc provided
druntime and phobos too.
No, that's a recipe for fragmentation. Phobos should be developed in consort
with the DMD frontend. The problem is that DMD frontend updates take time to
Le 10/05/2012 00:22, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 23:47:57 deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 23:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling a écrit :
On a more practical level, the inability of 3rd parties to distribute
DMD could have an effect in limiting points of access to the software
On 10/05/12 01:33, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Have you actually used them? I've tried and never got
far.
Yes, but that's because right now they are playing perpetual catch-up with DMD.
With the frontend stabilized, it'll be a different situation.
GDC works extremely well for me in general, and al
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:31:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Right, so what's the reason behind not adopting gdc or ldc as
the reference compiler?
Have you actually used them? I've tried and never got
far.
dmd just works.
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> Yesterday or the day before I pulled the latest Phobos into my dev branch and
> tried to compile it, only for some unittests to fall over rather nastily. Of
> course, it was because the latest Phobos updates relied on some recent updates
> to
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:16:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:04:14 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > Dumb question: what prevents someone from rewriting dmd's backend
> > with new code that isn't entangled by the previous license?
>
> It's a _ton_ of work for arguably litt
On 10/05/12 01:14, H. S. Teoh wrote:
There are both. Some proprietary developers avoid GPL like the plague
due to the whole "you must publish all your precious source code if you
distribute the binary" issue. Some other developers, admittedly in the
minority compared to the first group, refuse to
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:04:14 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Dumb question: what prevents someone from rewriting dmd's backend with
> new code that isn't entangled by the previous license?
It's a _ton_ of work for arguably little benefit. What we have for dmd works
just fine, and if you want a fully o
On 05/10/12 01:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:53:37PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:49:17 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>> On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite
>
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:03:01AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/05/12 00:45, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[...]
> >There are those who will refuse to use D because it's not copyleft.
> >Good luck getting those people on board ;)
>
> Do you mean there are those who will refuse to us
On 10/05/12 00:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But since that will never happen, it's a moot issue. It doesn't really matter
if we would have had 10 times as many people contributing (which I very much
doubt), Walter can't change the backend's license, so we're stuck with how
things are. There's real
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:55:36 -0700, Mehrdad wrote:
I am 100% for this. It would be very .NET like. In fact I'm curious
enough what it would take to make this work that I could see myself
trying. My guess is that it needs a new linker with the glorious
side-effect of dumping optlink! In tha
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:56:09 -0700, Artur Skawina
wrote:
On 05/10/12 00:15, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:07:44 -0700, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:41:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Except that there is a distinct need for the DRuntime as a shared
librar
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:53:37PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:49:17 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> > On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> > > I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite
> > > as the community scales up in size
On 10/05/12 00:45, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:32:26 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
But there are people who _aren't_ willing to make that compromise, and others
who will be put off before they even realize that compromise is possible.
There are those who will r
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:49:55 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
IIRC D compiles in the implementation code in the D and does
not use the code in the shared library, but I may be wrong.
It depends on how you pass it all to the compiler. If it
finds it in the import path - not on the command line -
I am 100% for this. It would be very .NET like. In fact I'm
curious enough what it would take to make this work that I
could see myself trying. My guess is that it needs a new linker
with the glorious side-effect of dumping optlink! In that case
it would mean upgrading the D backend to emit COF
On 05/10/12 00:15, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:07:44 -0700, Adam D. Ruppe
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:41:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>> Except that there is a distinct need for the DRuntime as a shared library.
>>
>> That doesn't really matter - you can deploy as
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:49:17 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> > I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite as the
> > community scales up in size.
>
> I'll add one more thing on this: you probably don't know whether or
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:43:57 -0700, H. S. Teoh
wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:17:41PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
My take, FWIW:
1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive
in code-hiding (and even then, only the ones who release libs), which
regardless of eve
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:46:42 -0700, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:41:12 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Actually there is a need for a shared library DRT
My point is though that shared library and .di are orthogonal
issues here.
You can use a shared library with full source
On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite as the
community scales up in size.
I'll add one more thing on this: you probably don't know whether or not you're
missing out, as there's no real way you can measure the number o
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:44:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
What we probably should do is change druntime's makefile so
that it generates .di files for certain files and just uses
the .d files for others.
Yes, I agree.
Perhaps at some point we'll want a hint for di generation
on a func
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:32:26 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
But there are people who _aren't_ willing to make that compromise, and
others who will be put off before they even realize that compromise is
possible.
To be perfectly honest, I don't really care :) I'm here to get stuff
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:41:12 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Actually there is a need for a shared library DRT
My point is though that shared library and .di are orthogonal
issues here.
You can use a shared library with full source files as imports.
You can use a static library with no implem
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:29:23 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:15:02 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> > Sure, but a lot of software developers, particularly those with
> > money, don't want their source getting out, and in a lot of
> > cases, there is no good reason to distribute
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:29:23 -0700, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:15:02 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure, but a lot of software developers, particularly those with money,
don't want their source getting out, and in a lot of cases, there is no
good reason to distribute th
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:34:30 -0700, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
On 10/05/12 00:25, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Which is what fueled the market for hundreds (if not thousands) of JS
obfuscators.
Well, that's kind of my point really. Is it so bad (from a proprietary
point of view) to have to dis
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:30:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:18:49 Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:16:17 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> CTFE cannot currently call a function without it's source.
Currently? If it can later the problem goes away...
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:52:33 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
I thought function default parameters need to be statically
known...
isn't it the case?
Nope – AFAIK you can also do something like (Foo param = new
Foo).
David
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:17:41PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> My take, FWIW:
>
> 1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive
> in code-hiding (and even then, only the ones who release libs), which
> regardless of everything else, isn't even *realistic* anyway - there
On 10/05/12 00:27, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The only thing that isn't fully open source is the dmd backend, and dmd gets
more pull requests than druntime and Phobos combined (it's also the project
with the biggest bottleneck, because _everything_ goes through Walter rather
than a small group of de
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:49:34 -0400, deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 23:38, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
Maybe, but I suspect most "not OSS" complaints would be coming from
people
who don't even know that much about D, and are just knee-jerking over
"The
main compiler's backend isn't OSS?!? Wel
I think it would be a unary prefix operator, which returns the
operand's copy, but with double the storage, having the second half -
wasted. :-D
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Matt Soucy wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 06:05 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:04:59PM -0400, Steven Sc
On 10/05/12 00:25, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Which is what fueled the market for hundreds (if not thousands) of JS
obfuscators.
Well, that's kind of my point really. Is it so bad (from a proprietary point of
view) to have to distribute .d rather than .di files, if you can obfuscate them?
On 05/09/2012 06:05 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:04:59PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:25:35 -0400, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-05-09 18:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This also works too:
int opBinary(string s: "booya!")(...)
We could
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:15:02 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure, but a lot of software developers, particularly those with
money, don't want their source getting out, and in a lot of
cases, there is no good reason to distribute the source.
Yeah, you're preaching to the choir... which is why
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:17:41 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
My take, FWIW:
1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive in
code-hiding (and even then, only the ones who release libs), which
regardless of everything else, isn't even *realistic* anyway - there's
always
On 10/05/12 00:23, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:39:36 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
and if I want to hack on Druntime or Phobos ... ? :-)
For what purpose? To get it included in phobos/druntime? DMD.
Well, yes, that's my point. If I want to contribute to
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:18:49 Era Scarecrow wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:16:17 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:03:21 -0700, Era Scarecrow
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Why would this be such a big deal? As I understand it some of
> >>
> >> this comes from D couldn't comp
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:18:49 -0700, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:16:17 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:03:21 -0700, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
Why would this be such a big deal? As I understand it some of this
comes from D couldn't compile to libraries (i
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 23:00:16 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 09/05/12 21:43, deadalnix wrote:
> > Le 09/05/2012 21:19, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
> >> "deadalnix" wrote in message
> >> news:jodll6$14eu$1...@digitalmars.com...
> >>
> >>> I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't the
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:18:56AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 09/05/12 23:10, Adam Wilson wrote:
[...]
> >Do companies regularly release python code to end-users?
>
> OK, OK, you can release Python compiled to bytecode.
>
> JavaScript, then. You _have_ to pass the browser the ful
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:39:36 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
On 09/05/12 23:06, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
So... Use GDC instead?
and if I want to hack on Druntime or Phobos ... ? :-)
[cf. what I was told here ...
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/learn/Hac
My take, FWIW:
1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive in
code-hiding (and even then, only the ones who release libs), which
regardless of everything else, isn't even *realistic* anyway - there's
always reverse-engineering, and with the super-popular JS there *IS N
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:16:17 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:03:21 -0700, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
Why would this be such a big deal? As I understand it some of
this comes from D couldn't compile to libraries (if that's
different now I am not sure, haven't kept up with all
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 23:47:57 deadalnix wrote:
> Le 09/05/2012 23:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling a écrit :
> > On a more practical level, the inability of 3rd parties to distribute
> > DMD could have an effect in limiting points of access to the software,
> > with corresponding effects on the po
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:07:45 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:41:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Except that there is a distinct need for the DRuntime as a
shared library.
That doesn't really matter - you can deploy as a shared library
and still use full source as th
On 09/05/12 23:10, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:04:17 -0700, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
On 09/05/12 22:53, Adam Wilson wrote:
Complete Source DI's are a blocking bug for a significant chuck of the
software development world.
Has this been a blocking issue for Python?
Do c
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:03:21 -0700, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 19:27:19 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
The problem is thus: CTFE requires that any function that it could
possibly evaluated by CTFE, must retain it's implementation.
Unfortunately, there is simply no way for
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:07:44 -0700, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:41:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Except that there is a distinct need for the DRuntime as a shared
library.
That doesn't really matter - you can deploy as a shared library
and still use full source as the
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 22:07:45 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:41:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Except that there is a distinct need for the DRuntime as a
shared library.
That doesn't really matter - you can deploy as a shared library
and still use full source as
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:59:11 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly
code) available whatsoever?
Well, the source is available if you buy it. $45 I think.
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 21:33:16 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
I'm sorry but one would invest time in something he isn't even
sure to be able to use himself.
Of course you can use it yourself! That's personal use,
not distribution.
Now, I get the annoyance in not distributing it (without
permissi
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 17:52:39 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> (since the prior approval
> is only required because *his* hands are tied on that matter by...uhh...was
> it Borland?),
Semantec. They own the backend that dmd uses.
- Jonathan M Davis
On 09/05/12 23:38, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Joseph Rushton Wakeling" wrote in message
news:mailman.465.1336596027.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The reason for proposing this is that currently if I wish to hack on
Druntime or Phobos, I _have_ to use DMD. True parity of the open-source
co
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:41:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Except that there is a distinct need for the DRuntime as a
shared library.
That doesn't really matter - you can deploy as a shared library
and still use full source as the interface file.
Hell, that's what putting implementations in
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:04:59PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:25:35 -0400, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
> >On 2012-05-09 18:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >
> >>This also works too:
> >>
> >>int opBinary(string s: "booya!")(...)
> >>
> >
> >We could create new opera
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 19:27:19 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
The problem is thus: CTFE requires that any function that it
could possibly evaluated by CTFE, must retain it's
implementation. Unfortunately, there is simply no way for the
DI generation system to know which functions are capable
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
