On 3/10/2013 10:46 PM, deadalnix wrote:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9685
Isn't it an already known bug ?
If that's it, then good.
You can try with nBodySim https://github.com/Zardoz89/nBodySim
I wrote it and tested with DMD 2.060, but should be working with
2.061 or 2.062.
I used it to benchmark "parallel for" vs "serial for" in some
computers with 2, 4 and 16 cores, getting a speedup like x13 in a
16 core machine.
It hav
As said in another post, I think auto ref suffer pretty much
the same problem, but it is less problematic as you can't see
the result on rvalues anyway, so the compiler cannot really
screw you. It has the inconvenience of taking by ref many thing
that would benefit from pass by value.
The onl
On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 18:56:05 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
And finally, while I think it's a shame that the reference
compiler is proprietary, Debian has a non-free repository that
DMD can be placed on as long as the binaries are
redistributable.
Are they? I have a vague memory of dmd
On 2013-03-11 06:22, H. S. Teoh wrote:
And now it's 2013 and g++ is still defaulting to the *old* C++?!
I don't mind having to add -std=c++11 as much as dealing with its incomplete
implementation. Still have to use the pcre library for regular expressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/lib
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/sys/resource.h?view=markup
?
On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 00:36 +0100, David Nadlinger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently finalizing my material for the LDC DConf talk, and
> I thought it would be nice to include a quick runtime performance
> comparison between the different compilers, just to give the
> audience a general sense
On Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 19:27:01 UTC, Namespace wrote:
But you could prohibit any manipulation of a '&' parameter. Eg.
you could make him 'scope' by default (if 'scope' will work
someday).
A better solution would be to require that a Parameter with '&'
need 'const scope' as storage class.
You can use my raytracing in D project.
https://github.com/minas1/D_Raytracing
It's very incomplete at the current state by the way (no soft
shadows, no texturing, no reflection, no antialiasing).
On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:10:54 Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 18:56:05 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> > And finally, while I think it's a shame that the reference
> > compiler is proprietary, Debian has a non-free repository that
> > DMD can be placed on as long as the binaries ar
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 11:54:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:10:54 Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 18:56:05 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski
wrote:
> And finally, while I think it's a shame that the reference
> compiler is proprietary, Debian has a non-free rep
On 03/11/2013 07:51 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
On 11.03.2013 01:15, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/11/2013 12:49 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/10/13 4:41 PM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
My
point is that import dependencies in D are more viral than C++ headers
because you cannot even remove them in
On 3/11/13 8:34 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/11/2013 07:51 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
An import is listed in the module info struct as a dependency, if it has
static constructors (or destructors) or if it imports modules that have
static constructors.
If a di-file misses an import, it might not e
The better option would be to pass all source files to update
in one invocation of dmd, so it won't get slower than a full
rebuild, but this has been plagued with linker errors in the
past (undefined and duplicate symbols). If it works, it could
identify independent group of files which you now
"deadalnix" wrote in message
news:libldszmvkzcezcfk...@forum.dlang.org...
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 02:17:36 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> A better way to do with would be to change (or extend) the abi, so that
>> structs over a certain size are always passed by reference with this
>> paramete
On 10 March 2013 21:01, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/8/2013 8:25 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> I have a struct. The struct have a context pointer. I have this method :
>>
>> @property
>> auto save() inout {
>> return inout(Lexer)(t, r.save, line, index);
>> }
>>
>> The context pointer IS NOT COPI
On 11 March 2013 05:46, deadalnix wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 21:01:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/2013 8:25 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>
>>> I have a struct. The struct have a context pointer. I have this method :
>>>
>>> @property
>>> auto save() inout {
>>> return inout(Lexer
"Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
news:khfoa6$fm7$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
> news:kgumek$2tp4$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> "Zach the Mystic" wrote in message
>> news:pabfuaorrjbljxzrg...@forum.dlang.org...
Something like this https://github.com/yebblie
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:13:32AM +0100, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 05:24:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >- Ahem. Next, the compiler complains, "you wrote a template name with
> > no parameters; that's illegal!" Perfectly legal complaint, but the
> > line concerned rea
Am 11.03.2013 15:20, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
"Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
news:khfoa6$fm7$1...@digitalmars.com...
"Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
news:kgumek$2tp4$1...@digitalmars.com...
"Zach the Mystic" wrote in message
news:pabfuaorrjbljxzrg...@forum.dlang.org...
Something like this
I was on vacation last week, mostly without internet and even
less D, which gave me the time to have existential thoughts
(about D ^^).
The issue I'm thinking about is @safe. @safe has a double
function:
1) Restrict any any usage of "unsafe" code.
2) Bounds check slices, even in release mode.
"dennis luehring" wrote in message
news:khkqug$v57$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Am 11.03.2013 15:20, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
>> "Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
>> news:khfoa6$fm7$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>> "Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
>>> news:kgumek$2tp4$1...@digitalmars.com...
"Zach th
If anything, safety must be opt-out. I conclude the exact
opposite : function must be @safe by default or inferred as
templates.
Am 11.03.2013 16:23, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
"dennis luehring" wrote in message
news:khkqug$v57$1...@digitalmars.com...
Am 11.03.2013 15:20, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
"Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
news:khfoa6$fm7$1...@digitalmars.com...
"Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
news:kgumek$2tp4$1...@
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 15:20:05 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
If anything, safety must be opt-out. I conclude the exact
opposite : function must be @safe by default or inferred as
templates.
That would have been nice too, but too crippling as is. If and
when we have all those sweet non-escapabl
"dennis luehring" wrote in message
news:khku3t$15ja$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Am 11.03.2013 16:23, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
>> "dennis luehring" wrote in message
>> news:khkqug$v57$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>> Am 11.03.2013 15:20, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
"Daniel Murphy" wrote in message
n
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 13:27:47 UTC, jerro wrote:
Aside from linker errors, there is one more (minor) issue with
this approach. If there are multiple source files with the same
name and there is no -of flag, DMD will generate an object file
for just one of them. This could be worked around
Hi,
I started to work on a networking heavy project and I found out that
there is nothing like boost.asio in D's standard library. So I looked
around and discovered that vibe.d has nice fiber-based asynchronous
library, but sadly it does not play along well with threads. Then I
looked some more an
An interesting feature of G++ 4.8:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FunctionMultiVersioning
It allows to write various versions of a function, for different
CPUs.
To work it uses new built-in functions like
__builtin_cpu_supports and __builtin_cpu_is, run-time dispatch,
the attribute syntax, plus th
If you want to opt-out safety from template function foo, you can just add
@system attribute to it.
int[] a;
@system int foo()() { return a[0]; }
void main() { foo!()(); }
$ dmd -run test
core.exception.RangeError@test(3): Range violation
$ dmd -release -run test
object.Error: Access Violation
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:06:40 +0100
Martin Drasar wrote:
> So I looked
> around and discovered that vibe.d has nice fiber-based asynchronous
> library, but sadly it does not play along well with threads.
Thread support is being worked on for vibe.d.
On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 17:06 +0100, Martin Drasar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I started to work on a networking heavy project and I found out that
> there is nothing like boost.asio in D's standard library. So I looked
> around and discovered that vibe.d has nice fiber-based asynchronous
> library, but sadly
On 11 March 2013 16:01, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "dennis luehring" wrote in message
> news:khku3t$15ja$1...@digitalmars.com...
> > Am 11.03.2013 16:23, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
> >> "dennis luehring" wrote in message
> >> news:khkqug$v57$1...@digitalmars.com...
> >>> Am 11.03.2013 15:20, schrieb Da
This has become a C++ thread but... :)
On 03/11/2013 02:30 AM, FG wrote:
> the good old stream code:
>
> std::stringstream ss; ss << number; out = ss.str();
>
> Seriously? If I could at least chain that...
>
> out = std::stringstream(number).str();
>
> Unfortunately, no.
We consider Boost a par
On Sunday, March 10, 2013 13:56:54 Maxim Fomin wrote:
> I found this is interesting to hear that somebody with excellent
> D project knowledge is happy with the language taking into
> accounts bugs, non-completed features, limited third library
> support and poor tool chain.
Of course I am. Anyone
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 01:24:17 -0400, Marco Leise wrote:
Am Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:10:24 -0400
schrieb "Steven Schveighoffer" :
I think we can find a mix. Since fork gives you a convenient location
to
close all open file descriptors, we should do so by default. But if you
want standard posix b
On 09/03/2013 11:15, Artur Skawina wrote:
Seriously though, they point out several problems, some of which are C++
context specific (like mixing CPP w/ static-if and lack of introspection).
Other mentioned issues are not real problems in practice, or not even
problems at all.
What's left is:
-
11-Mar-2013 03:36, David Nadlinger пишет:
Hi all,
I am currently finalizing my material for the LDC DConf talk, and I
thought it would be nice to include a quick runtime performance
comparison between the different compilers, just to give the audience a
general sense of what to expect.
Thus, I
11-Mar-2013 13:30, FG пишет:
On 2013-03-11 06:22, H. S. Teoh wrote:
And now it's 2013 and g++ is still defaulting to the *old* C++?!
I don't mind having to add -std=c++11 as much as dealing with its
incomplete implementation. Still have to use the pcre library for
regular expressions.
http:
"Nick Treleaven" wrote:
On 09/03/2013 11:15, Artur Skawina wrote:
> - static-if not creating scopes/is/ confusing, but what would be a
> better
> alternative?
Isn't it only confusing to newbies? It's not hard to learn and recognize.
Maybe. This is just precisely the way how it all b
On 03/11/2013 07:55 PM, Jouko Koski wrote:
"Nick Treleaven" wrote:
On 09/03/2013 11:15, Artur Skawina wrote:
> - static-if not creating scopes/is/ confusing, but what would be
a > better
> alternative?
Isn't it only confusing to newbies? It's not hard to learn and recognize.
Maybe.
On 3/11/13 1:39 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
This has become a C++ thread but... :)
On 03/11/2013 02:30 AM, FG wrote:
> the good old stream code:
>
> std::stringstream ss; ss << number; out = ss.str();
>
> Seriously? If I could at least chain that...
>
> out = std::stringstream(number).str();
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 19:25:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 3/11/13 1:39 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
This has become a C++ thread but... :)
On 03/11/2013 02:30 AM, FG wrote:
> the good old stream code:
>
> std::stringstream ss; ss << number; out = ss.str();
>
> Seriously? If I could at
What about -oq?
I assume you meant -op? I didn't know about -op flag, it seems it
does solve this problem.
On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
> Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for declarations made
> inside the static if condition.
No, it doesn't, and it would be _way_ less useful if it did, particularly with
regards to struct and class definitions. Take this code, f
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 06:22:15 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Many things can be done to mitigate that stuff.
Thank you,
Now we need to come up with ways to help facilitate making these
changes.
The first, obvious one, is to provide a version of the compiler
without the fix (bug with other f
On 3/10/2013 5:47 PM, Rob T wrote:
A good start is to support a particular industry that no one else is currently
catering to in enough detail. If we could figure out who is using D commercially
to try and figure out what is seen as being the main strengths, then the
language and its libraries co
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 07:19:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Any well-thought change is the way forwards as it improves the
language. And is actually a regression.
I disagree with your definition of regression and prefer:
"A return to a former or less developed state."
You tend to separate "good
On 3/11/13 3:31 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
Speaking of which, I noticed Facebook's Folly had a conv.h with a to<>.
Was that inspired by Phobos' std.conv?
https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/master/folly/docs/Conv.md
We use some text file formats (notably Hadoop/Hive) which require
extensive
On 03/11/2013 09:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for declarations made
inside the static if condition.
No, it doesn't,
Yes it does.
and it would be _way_ less useful if it did,
I don't th
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:31:53PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 09:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
> >>Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for declarations
> >>made inside the static if condition.
> >
> >No, it doesn't,
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 22:12:46 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 21:31:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/11/2013 09:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for
declarations made
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 21:31:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/11/2013 09:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for
declarations made
inside the static if condition.
No, it doesn't,
Yes it doe
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 00:48:59 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter
wrote:
See the static_if paper here:
http://isocpp.org/forums
Under the post "constraints and static if" there is a link to a
document about
static_if
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDIyMDc3NjUwMTczOTM
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 22:08:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:31:53PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/11/2013 09:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
>>Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for
>>declarations
>>
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 21:31:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/11/2013 09:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for
declarations made
inside the static if condition.
No, it doesn't,
Yes it doe
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 21:31:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
static if(is(typeof(var) == int))
int j = 22;
What is the point? Your example code does not make any
declaration inside the static if condition.
I'm not sure what your definition of declaration is, but that
looks like o
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:52:26 -0500, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 03:48:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
IIRC, you were able to get something working there with std.process2.
Is that example still working? I'm trying to see what could be
different that's c
On 2013-03-11 18:36, Iain Buclaw wrote:
(The D conversion seems to think it's lisp).
(LOL)
On 03/03/2013 08:34 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I'd argue that at least templates should not require
run-time stuff at all.
Templates do not require any runtime support.
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 19:44:31 UTC, jerro wrote:
What about -oq?
I assume you meant -op? I didn't know about -op flag, it seems
it does solve this problem.
Oops, it looks like -oq is something ldc-specific. It implements
your exact suggestion (creates a.b.c.obj instead of c.obj or
a/
On 03/11/2013 11:06 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:31:53PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/11/2013 09:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for declarations
made inside the static if
On 03/11/2013 11:15 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
...
I think that's bug material. The "is" definition should end at the end
of that block.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9693
On Monday, March 11, 2013 23:12:45 monarch_dodra wrote:
> What *are* you talking about??? I can count 4 declarations in 2
> static ifs? What is your definition of "declaration" and "scope".
>
> There's a misunderstanding somewhere here. Can YOU show us an
> example where there is a declaration tha
On 3/12/13, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> There's clearly a fundamental misunderstanding
Clearly 10 people in here haven't read his sentence properly where he
said "in the static if **condition**", and not the static if *block*.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:53:59 -0400
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2013 23:12:45 monarch_dodra wrote:
> > What *are* you talking about??? I can count 4 declarations in 2
> > static ifs? What is your definition of "declaration" and "scope".
> >
> > There's a misunderstanding some
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 09:03:20PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:53:59 -0400
> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 11, 2013 23:12:45 monarch_dodra wrote:
> > > What *are* you talking about??? I can count 4 declarations in 2
> > > static ifs? What is your defi
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 22:42:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 21:31:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/11/2013 09:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 20:14:07 Timon Gehr wrote:
Actually, in D, static if creates its own scopes for
declarations made
On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 at 00:54:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 23:12:45 monarch_dodra wrote:
What *are* you talking about??? I can count 4 declarations in 2
static ifs? What is your definition of "declaration" and
"scope".
There's a misunderstanding somewhere her
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 14:09:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Wow. That's quite out of character for Bjarne. I think it's
quite a poor piece.
Andrei
I simply didn't have the stomach to read it after the first
paragraph. They have no idea what they are talking about. It is
as if th
"Iain Buclaw" wrote in message
news:mailman.357.1363023395.14496.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> (The D conversion seems to think it's lisp).
>
Expression resolveLoc(Loc loc, Scope sc)
{
tracein("resolveLoc");
scope(success) traceout("resolveLoc");
scope(failure) traceerr(
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 16:42:56 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 15:22:55 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
[..]
BTW, in regards to template constraints (not the rest), he
does have a point. We have raised the exact same issues here
on the boards more than once.
The more I th
On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 at 01:00:58 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/12/13, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
There's clearly a fundamental misunderstanding
Clearly 10 people in here haven't read his sentence properly
where he
said "in the static if **condition**", and not the static if
*block*.
A small question relative to this issue (see it for more info):
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4565
Today this syntax compiles:
void main() {
int[1][3] a2;
a2[0][] = 1;
a2[1][] = 2;
a2[2][] = 3;
}
This used to compile fine, but today it gives warnings (and this
Am Tue, 12 Mar 2013 01:09:52 +0100
schrieb "Vladimir Panteleev" :
> On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 19:44:31 UTC, jerro wrote:
> >> What about -oq?
> >
> > I assume you meant -op? I didn't know about -op flag, it seems
> > it does solve this problem.
>
> Oops, it looks like -oq is something ldc-spec
On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 at 02:39:06 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 16:42:56 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 15:22:55 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
[..]
BTW, in regards to template constraints (not the rest), he
does have a point. We have raised the exact same
Oops, it looks like -oq is something ldc-specific. It
implements your exact suggestion (creates a.b.c.obj instead of
c.obj or a/b/c.obj).
Thanks, didn't know about that one either. It does seem nice -
too bad it's only supported by LDC.
On 3/11/2013 8:43 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Yes, that is the idea. It seems really cool.
It's interfaces without the vtable[].
It's still solely based on type signatures. D constraints make pretty much
anything that can be computed at compile time a testable gate.
On 3/12/13, jerro wrote:
>> Oops, it looks like -oq is something ldc-specific. It
>> implements your exact suggestion (creates a.b.c.obj instead of
>> c.obj or a/b/c.obj).
>
> Thanks, didn't know about that one either. It does seem nice -
> too bad it's only supported by LDC.
>
You can always fil
On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 at 04:34:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/11/2013 8:43 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Yes, that is the idea. It seems really cool.
It's interfaces without the vtable[].
It's still solely based on type signatures. D constraints make
pretty much anything that can be computed a
Am 12.03.2013 03:25, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
"Iain Buclaw" wrote in message
news:mailman.357.1363023395.14496.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
(The D conversion seems to think it's lisp).
Expression resolveLoc(Loc loc, Scope sc)
{
tracein("resolveLoc");
scope(success) trace
On 3/11/2013 10:49 PM, deadalnix wrote:
And this is very similar to our template constraint system and static if, except
we are meta here (ie, meta dynamic typing vs meta static typing).
The issue I have with it is it is only able to express concepts as types. Values
are important, too, as the
On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 at 06:05:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/11/2013 10:49 PM, deadalnix wrote:
And this is very similar to our template constraint system and
static if, except
we are meta here (ie, meta dynamic typing vs meta static
typing).
The issue I have with it is it is only abl
On 3/11/2013 11:17 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Both definitively have advantages and drawbacks. Does the C++ team have any plan
on making concept work with values ?
I don't know.
Concepts are for instance THE perfect match for all kind of range we have.
Not for infinite ranges, which depend on emp
On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 10:55:50 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 19:27:01 UTC, Namespace wrote:
But you could prohibit any manipulation of a '&' parameter.
Eg. you could make him 'scope' by default (if 'scope' will
work someday).
A better solution would be to require tha
85 matches
Mail list logo
