On 2013-09-07 13:23, David wrote:
I wrote the Kate/Kwrite/Kdevelop Plugin. I recommend you to let the
server running all the time anyways (start it with X e.g.), since
processing phobos alone takes quite some time. If you power up the
editor you don't wanna wait a few minutes until DCD is done
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 17:00:08 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the
declaration of a member function in the struct/class/union, and
placing the definition of it at global scope in the module or
even in another module.
On 07.09.2013 14:47, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
I propose that we add a command-line-paramter to the compiler (windows
only) which actually enables dllexport. So all behavior described in the
DIP will be enabled by default, but to actually make it mark symbols
with dllexport you have to specifiy a
On 08/09/13 15:40, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/7/2013 9:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On an implementation note, I don't think that #5 is strong enough. I
think
that it should be an outright error if there is a difference between the
declaration and definition rather than giving one precedence
Am 08.09.2013 07:48, schrieb Iain Buclaw:
On Sep 8, 2013 5:55 AM, dennis luehring dl.so...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 07.09.2013 19:00, schrieb Walter Bright:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the declaration
of a
member function in the struct/class/union, and placing the
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 04:32:36 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:l0fm2o$2uat$1...@digitalmars.com...
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the
declaration of a member function in the struct/class/union,
and
On 8 September 2013 07:14, dennis luehring dl.so...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 08.09.2013 07:48, schrieb Iain Buclaw:
On Sep 8, 2013 5:55 AM, dennis luehring dl.so...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 07.09.2013 19:00, schrieb Walter Bright:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the declaration
On 9/7/2013 11:08 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
In summary, you've gotten rid of the need for this type of duplication so why
would you introduce it?
I believe that is covered in the Rationale section of the dip.
On Sunday, September 08, 2013 14:45:21 Daniel Murphy wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.980.1378598947.1719.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
enum MouseAction
{
press,
release,
alias click = press, // does not reset
Am 08.09.2013 06:19, schrieb deadalnix:
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 21:41:01 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
I don't agree if that statement. If you have three libs. lib1, lib2
and lib3. And lib2 and lib3 link statically against lib1 you are going
to get linker errors because both lib2 and lib3
Am 27.08.2013 12:12, schrieb Benjamin Thaut:
The current behaviour of export is not sufficient to create a shared
runtime on windows. Its alos not working very well in a few other cases.
For background information please read the links provided in the DIP.
This DIP tries to solve the problem by
Am 08.09.2013 09:33, schrieb Benjamin Thaut:
Am 27.08.2013 12:12, schrieb Benjamin Thaut:
The current behaviour of export is not sufficient to create a shared
runtime on windows. Its alos not working very well in a few other cases.
For background information please read the links provided in
On 9/8/13 8:08, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I've recently ran into a bug that was very hard to track down for me.
I've had a good set of unittests, but I kept getting the wrong results
out of my functions, which was very bizarre.
To boil it down, when you introduce a member in an enum which
Am 08.09.2013 08:46, schrieb Iain Buclaw:
im talking about Parameter names need not match.
so it will become hard to find the same overload of a method if someone else
writes int a, int b in declaration and int pa, int pb in implementation -
and the only benefit is beeing compatible with c/c++ -
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 06:47:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/7/2013 11:08 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
In summary, you've gotten rid of the need for this type of
duplication so why
would you introduce it?
I believe that is covered in the Rationale section of the dip.
IMHO the
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 23:31:20 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 9/7/2013 4:22 PM, Flamaros wrote:
I hope to see MonoD on github/d-programming-language too if
it's the case of
VisualD.
MonoD is definitely a contender for that. But let's take a
moment to digest VisualD before we
I'm against it. More important than such a gimmick are the many
open bugs, auto ref, AA, scope, etc. And don't forget the
implementation of the virtual keyword.
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 01:53:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I have no problem with it, though since I'm not likely to ever
use it or
contribute to it, I'm not sure that I particularly care one way
or the other.
I have no problem with people using IDEs and they can be nice,
but I'm
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 09:15:52 UTC, Namespace wrote:
I'm against it. More important than such a gimmick are the many
open bugs, auto ref, AA, scope, etc. And don't forget the
implementation of the virtual keyword.
+1
2013/9/8 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
On Sunday, September 08, 2013 14:45:21 Daniel Murphy wrote:
Honestly, it seems like overkill to me.
I can understand it would be an annoying bug to hit, but I doubt it
would be
that common.
Agreed.
I also agree that the compiler
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 09:43:02 UTC, Kenji Hara wrote:
I also agree that the compiler enhancement is overkill.
Kenji Hara
Let's not throw this away quite yet: There is *another*
fundamental difference:
enum S
{
a,
b = a,
}
This creates an enum with *two* entries.
enum S
{
Most awesome
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 09:24:52 UTC, Michael wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 09:15:52 UTC, Namespace wrote:
I'm against it. More important than such a gimmick are the
many open bugs, auto ref, AA, scope, etc. And don't forget the
implementation of the virtual keyword.
+1
I
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 21:02:09 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 09/06/2013 01:47 PM, Savsak wrote:
Hi Friends,
Socket programming with the D programming language is the
most simple
way how to do it
For example, the sample with Tango, but not by phobos
How do I do this with a simple,
I find myself writing the following a lot:
a[base..base+width]
to get the slice starting at 'base' of width 'width'. In verilog,
we select members of a vector/array in three ways
a[c : d] //D: a[c .. d+1]
a[c +: d] //D: a[c .. c+d]
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d .. c]
Borrowing a
On 08/09/13 06:26, Paul Jurczak wrote:
Right on target. If D wants to achieve some level of visibility for Windows C++
developers, Visual Studio presence is crucial. We are talking about a huge chunk
of market share here!
Disclosure: I have to use Visual Studio in work for my clients.
I
Wouldn't this style be an acceptable compromise instead? with
both declaration and definition 100% identical.
struct S
{
// member function declarations
static int mfunc1(int a, int b = 5) pure;
static int mfunc2(int a, int b = 5) pure;
static int mfunc3(int a, int b = 5) pure;
//
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d .. c]
I think this should be
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d+1 .. c+1], e.g. a[5 -: 2] == [a[4], a[5]]
Hi Friends,
dmd2 files downloaded at this address.
I took the files to the destination directory in this way.
/usr/dmd2
/usr/dmd2/bin
/usr/dmd2/lib
/usr/dmd2/man
/usr/dmd2/src
edited config file.
[Environment]
DFLAGS=-I/usr/dmd2/src/phobos -I/usr/dmd2/src/druntime/import
-L/usr/dmd2/lib
On 09/08/2013 06:46 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If I had to vote though, I'd vote against this, because I think that
it's a bad paradigm, and I don't want to deal with it.
+1
08-Sep-2013 09:00, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
On Saturday, September 07, 2013 10:00:05 Walter Bright wrote:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the declaration of
a member function in the struct/class/union, and placing the definition of
it at global scope in the module or
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 10:59:34 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote:
On 09/08/2013 06:46 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If I had to vote though, I'd vote against this, because I
think that
it's a bad paradigm, and I don't want to deal with it.
+1
+1
Also issues mentioned by Manu are easily
On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 00:35 +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[…]
Well, if you want a production quality multi-platform IDE the only
options are InteliJ and Eclipse, both of which are not that well
received by most C and C++ guys. The target audience for D.
That is my humble opinion, regarding the
Am 08.09.2013 13:24, schrieb Russel Winder:
On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 00:35 +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[…]
And why is the target audience for D only C and C++ people? Surely the
target audience for D is any programmer wanting a native code
executable.
Because many of us are actually aware of
On 08/09/13 13:24, Russel Winder wrote:
And why is the target audience for D only C and C++ people? Surely the
target audience for D is any programmer wanting a native code
executable.
They're not the _only_ target audience but they're surely the _main_ target
audience. Users of higher-level
On 9/8/13 18:56, Batuhan Göksu batuhango...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Friends,
dmd2 files downloaded at this address.
I took the files to the destination directory in this way.
/usr/dmd2
/usr/dmd2/bin
/usr/dmd2/lib
/usr/dmd2/man
/usr/dmd2/src
edited config file.
[Environment]
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 11:24:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
And why is the target audience for D only C and C++ people?
Surely the
target audience for D is any programmer wanting a native code
executable.
I think that D visibility isn't enough for the moment to be able
to convince Java
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:56:09 +0200
Batuhan Göksu batuhango...@gmail.com wrote:
[Environment]
DFLAGS=-I/usr/dmd2/src/phobos -I/usr/dmd2/src/druntime/import
-L/usr/dmd2/lib
I'm not on Posix ATM, but I think that last arg is supposed to be:
-L-L/usr/dmd2/lib
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 10:53:23 UTC, Øivind wrote:
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d .. c]
I think this should be
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d+1 .. c+1], e.g. a[5 -: 2] == [a[4],
a[5]]
try a[base][0..width]
On 2013-09-07 17:00:05 +, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the
declaration of a member function in the struct/class/union, and placing
the definition of it at global scope in the module or even in another
module.
On 2013-09-08, 14:02, Chang Long wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 10:53:23 UTC, Øivind wrote:
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d .. c]
I think this should be
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d+1 .. c+1], e.g. a[5 -: 2] == [a[4], a[5]]
try a[base][0..width]
That throws safety out the window for one.
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:00:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:56:09 +0200
Batuhan Göksu batuhango...@gmail.com wrote:
[Environment]
DFLAGS=-I/usr/dmd2/src/phobos -I/usr/dmd2/src/druntime/import
-L/usr/dmd2/lib
I'm not on Posix ATM, but I think that last arg is
On 9/8/13, Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.ca wrote:
So I'd like to suggest this: allow a .d file to import its corresponding
.di file.
This is actually what Andrei proposed as well.
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 10:56:11 UTC, Batuhan Göksu wrote:
.dmg file in the destination directory and the installation
does not want to set up.
What errors do you get using the installer?
-
/Jacob Carlborg
On 9/8/13, Daniel Murphy yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Two strategies that will prevent this bug are:
1) Put the 'alias' members directly after the member they reference
2) Put the 'alias' members at the end
There is another strategy, which I currently use, is to explicitly
initialize all
On 9/8/13, monarch_dodra monarchdo...@gmail.com wrote:
enum S
{
a,
alias b = a,
}
This would create an enum with a *single* entry, which can be
accessed via two different names.
Yeah I've thought about this separately from that enhancement, I think
this feature *alone* would
It won't work. (This is why my project uses IP sockets for
local communication, even on Linux)
That has already been fixed in the version of Phobos on Github
(I've marked it as fixed now, didn't know about that issue on
bugzilla before).
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 17:00:08 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the
declaration of a member function in the struct/class/union, and
placing the definition of it at global scope in the module or
even in another module.
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:46:49 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
This proposal is just going back to the hell of header files
again.
It has nothing to do with header files. Or real header file
problems.
Seriously, this goes against everything you learn as a
programmer, nothing should
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:00:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:56:09 +0200
Batuhan Göksu batuhango...@gmail.com wrote:
[Environment]
DFLAGS=-I/usr/dmd2/src/phobos -I/usr/dmd2/src/druntime/import
-L/usr/dmd2/lib
I'm not on Posix ATM, but I think that last arg is
P.S. In general I'd love to have feature feature proposed in
DIP47 but its importance is very, _very_ low, right now it is
probably the least important DIP in the whole list.
08-Sep-2013 16:02, Michel Fortin пишет:
On 2013-09-07 17:00:05 +, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
said:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the
declaration of a member function in the struct/class/union, and
placing the definition of it at global scope in the
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:08:50 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On 2013-09-08, 14:02, Chang Long wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 10:53:23 UTC, Øivind wrote:
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d .. c]
I think this should be
a[c -: d] //D: a[c-d+1 .. c+1], e.g. a[5 -: 2] == [a[4],
a[5]]
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 10:42:22 UTC, Savsak wrote:
Thanks acehreli
In the example you give, but I receive this error during
compilation.
savsak:~ savsak$ dmd /Users/savsak/Desktop/test.d
ld: library not found for -lphobos2
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
--- errorlevel 1
Your
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:53:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Seriously, this goes against everything you learn as a
programmer, nothing should ever be typed twice and then to say
that the declaration and implementation could be different
just boggles my mind?!?! Great more work!
It is no
On 2013-09-07, 15:19, ilya-stromberg wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 13:02:39 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
It's a bit weird in D though, as operators are instance methods, and
opImplicitRightCast (or opImplicitCastFrom, which is the name used in
discussions before, see WalterAndrei.pdf
Am 08.09.2013 15:11, schrieb Gary Willoughby:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:53:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Seriously, this goes against everything you learn as a programmer,
nothing should ever be typed twice and then to say that the
declaration and implementation could be different just boggles
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 13:11:01 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
That said, I am strongly against permissive rules proposed in
this DIP. It should be similar to overriding rules - any
smallest difference between to signatures and program stops
compiling. Otherwise it is maintenance hell.
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:46:49 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
I'm absolutely against this DIP.
This proposal is just going back to the hell of header files
again. Why on earth would you emulate C/C++ when D was supposed
to be designed taking into account lessons learned from them.
This
I have never worked on any reasonably large Java/C# code base.
But it C++ once amount of entities grows large enough clear
interface overview in header files is basically only way to get
familiar quickly with sources.
This is a job for the *documentation* and if documentation is
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:34:06 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 9/8/13, Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.ca wrote:
So I'd like to suggest this: allow a .d file to import its
corresponding
.di file.
This is actually what Andrei proposed as well.
+42
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 15:09:31 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
This is a job for the *documentation* and if documentation is
automatically generated (which it is, see '-D') then this
argument is moot.
Documentation is tool to help with cross-project learning. I have
never seen one used
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 15:14:51 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:34:06 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 9/8/13, Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.ca wrote:
So I'd like to suggest this: allow a .d file to import its
corresponding
.di file.
This is actually what
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 13:00:11 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
08-Sep-2013 16:02, Michel Fortin пишет:
[Snip]
Example:
// test.di
module test;
class A {
void foo(int a, int b);
}
// test.d
import module test; // import declarations from the .di
file
On 2013-09-08, 12:46, Tove wrote:
Wouldn't this style be an acceptable compromise instead? with both
declaration and definition 100% identical.
struct S
{
// member function declarations
static int mfunc1(int a, int b = 5) pure;
static int mfunc2(int a, int b = 5) pure;
static
On 2013-09-07, 19:00, Walter Bright wrote:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the declaration
of a member function in the struct/class/union, and placing the
definition of it at global scope in the module or even in another module.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP47
I like
In response to Walter's DIP47 I have created my own take on what I see as
the main problem:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP48
Destroy!
--
Simen
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 18:13:52 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
In response to Walter's DIP47 I have created my own take on
what I see as the main problem:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP48
Destroy!
Personally I find this practice of creating a competing DIP to be
very annoying. This was
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 18:13:52 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
In response to Walter's DIP47 I have created my own take on
what I see as the main problem:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP48
Destroy!
I like it but would prefer
@interface instead of interface
Since using interface in this way,
On 08/09/13 01:22, Flamaros wrote:
I hope to see MonoD on github/d-programming-language too if it's the case of
VisualD.
One thing that could help with MonoD would be if it could effectively support
more than the most recent stable version of MonoDevelop. Version 3.0 is still
the one used
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 17:00:08 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the
declaration of a member function in the struct/class/union, and
placing the definition of it at global scope in the module or
even in another module.
On 9/8/13, Jesse Phillips jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that we want to make it as painless as possible for
Remedy to switch from C++ to D (along with the rest of the game
developers).
FWIW I don't think this has anything to do with Remedy (afaik Manu
doesn't work there
Just for the sake of completeness:
mono is *detested* and considered even more inacceptable than
java by many linux and (even more) *BSD users.
Actually I *did* try the eclipse D IDE thing ... and found it to
match my (utterly negative) perception of java (which has pretty
nothing to do
On 7 September 2013 22:57, Ramon s...@thanks.no wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 20:02:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Am 07.09.2013 21:55, schrieb Peter Alexander:
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:39:21 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Sadly, Visual Studio is a huge player in the game. Make
On 8 September 2013 22:00, Ramon s...@thanks.no wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness:
mono is *detested* and considered even more inacceptable than java by many
linux and (even more) *BSD users.
Swings in roundabouts. Also depends what you mean by detest and inacceptable...
From an
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 10:42:22 UTC, Savsak wrote:
...
In the example you give, but I receive this error during
compilation.
savsak:~ savsak$ dmd /Users/savsak/Desktop/test.d
ld: library not found for -lphobos2
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
--- errorlevel 1
To help dicebot and
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 21:08:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
...
Against because we need a solution for *all* major platforms
(Lx32, Lx64,
*BSD, apple, w32,w64) and I'm worried that this resolution
here might lead
to a So, we *do* have an IDE. Case closed attitude.
Why not
I'm opposed to this DIP. It's aimed solely at aiding readability,
but having two ways to do something usually detracts from
readability. I don't see the point.
On 2013-09-08, 20:28, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 18:13:52 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
In response to Walter's DIP47 I have created my own take on what I see
as the main problem:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP48
Destroy!
Personally I find this practice of creating a
On 9/8/13, Ramon s...@thanks.no wrote:
Fox and fltk are
nice little thingies but not up to (todays) par lacking even
functionality like printing.
Printing seems like something that should be in a separate library,
and maybe the GUI library would provide a nice interface over its
functionality.
I don't like DIP47, but I think I like this less. The original
DIP this is competing against at least has some sense of
familiarity. This is some weird new thing, and neither DIP really
does anything meaningful.
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 23:00:17 +0200
Ramon s...@thanks.no wrote:
Visual$$ on Windoze
Let's stick to grown-up words here. I'm not a fan of MS or Win either,
but every time you write Windoze or spell something with $ it does
nothing to hurt MS/Win and only makes you and other Posix users look
like
On 9/8/13, Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the alias member feature pull its weight? Or is it overkill and
we should drop it?
Anyway after some more thought I think it's overkill, since not
resetting the counter could be just as confusing as resetting it.
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:05:03 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Recent threads here have made it pretty clear that VisualD is a
critical piece of D infrastructure. (VisualD integrated D usage
into Microsoft Visual Studio.)
Andrei, myself and Rainer (VisualD's champion) are all in
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:59:41 -0400
Nick Sabalausky seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com wrote:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:45:29 +0200
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2013-09-05 22:07, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I've decided I'm going to add proper support for 32-bit-only and
64-bit-only
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 21:47:59 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 9/8/13, Ramon s...@thanks.no wrote:
Fox and fltk are
nice little thingies but not up to (todays) par lacking even
functionality like printing.
Printing seems like something that should be in a separate
library,
and maybe
On 08/09/13 23:21, Iain Buclaw wrote:
From an ethical viewpoint, I think most of it is FUD that still
lingers from back when there was confusion over what Microsoft was
going to do C# (there was for a long time fear that it would drive all
free C# implementations underground). But all that mist
On 9/7/2013 9:45 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
tl;dr I don't think this justifies a new feature. A lint rule, absolutely.
A warning, possibly. But not a new feature.
I agree with the reasoning of the others here - not worth it.
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 23:24:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/7/2013 9:45 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
tl;dr I don't think this justifies a new feature. A lint
rule, absolutely.
A warning, possibly. But not a new feature.
I agree with the reasoning of the others here - not worth it.
On 9/8/2013 6:03 AM, Øivind wrote:
That throws safety out the window for one. If you want safety and
no new language features, this should work:
a[base..$][0..width]
Thanks
Still a little verbose, but at least you don't have to type the same things
twice.
I guess the double slice will be
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 22:37:00 UTC, Ramon wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 21:47:59 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 9/8/13, Ramon s...@thanks.no wrote:
Fox and fltk are
nice little thingies but not up to (todays) par lacking even
functionality like printing.
Printing seems like
It has just come to my attention that there's a problem with the DECLARE_HANDLE template
in the Win32 bindings.
This is the definition in MinGW:
#define DECLARE_HANDLE(n) typedef struct n##__{int i;}*n
And this is the definition in our bindings:
package template DECLARE_HANDLE(string
On Sunday, September 08, 2013 12:08:07 monarch_dodra wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 09:43:02 UTC, Kenji Hara wrote:
I also agree that the compiler enhancement is overkill.
Kenji Hara
Let's not throw this away quite yet: There is *another*
fundamental difference:
enum S
{
On 9/8/13 5:33 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 9/8/13, Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.ca wrote:
So I'd like to suggest this: allow a .d file to import its corresponding
.di file.
This is actually what Andrei proposed as well.
I have to say I was a lot more in favor of the proposal before
On Sep 8, 2013 11:49 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 08/09/13 23:21, Iain Buclaw wrote:
From an ethical viewpoint, I think most of it is FUD that still
lingers from back when there was confusion over what Microsoft was
going to do C# (there was for a long
On 08/09/13 22:46, Gary Willoughby wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 17:00:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the
declaration of a member function in the struct/class/union, and
placing the definition of it at global scope in the module
On 09/09/13 02:03, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Both the C# specification (
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm ) and the
common language infrastructure (CLI) (
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm ) have
been standardised for some time
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 02:53:10PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:46:49 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
[...]
Seriously, this goes against everything you learn as a programmer,
nothing should ever be typed twice and then to say that the
declaration and implementation could
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 08:13:33PM +0200, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
In response to Walter's DIP47 I have created my own take on what I
see as the main problem:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP48
[...]
I don't see this as a fundamentally better or different solution than
DIP47, which I already vote
On 9/9/2013 8:52 AM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
What do people think we should do?
Eliminate declare handle and alias all HANDLE types to void*.
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
