On 2013-11-14 08:36, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
This project imports stdx.d.(lexer/parser/ast). Where can I find these modules?
The Dscanner submodule:
https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Dscanner/tree/master/stdx/d
--
/Jacob Carlborg
A completion feature for emacs, I definitely need to try it ! Thanks for
your work Brian.
@Philippe Sigaud: On the author's other project, DScanner (
https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Dscanner).
2013/11/14 Philippe Sigaud philippe.sig...@gmail.com
This project imports stdx.d.(lexer/parser/ast).
On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 13:18:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
http://code.dlang.org/packages/unit-threaded
https://github.com/atilaneves/unit-threaded
What's new? Bug fixes and the dtest util.
dtest lets you point it at a list of directories, preferably
just one called tests (that way
Whew I almost applied for the role last night.
Welcome Master Andrew.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.comwrote:
Please join Andrei and myself in congratulating Andrew in his new role as
Build Master!
Lots of people have worked on various aspects of
Hey everyone!
I have been experimenting for the past couple of days with an
idea I had, and since I recently made a little progress I thought
I would share some of what I have been doing with you. What I
have done, in a nutshell, is began the process for a language
converter that takes D
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Jeremy DeHaan dehaan.jerem...@gmail.comwrote:
I can, and would love to go in to more detail about this, but it is
getting late and this post is already quite long. Maybe I should start a
blog about my D escapades? Anyways, I would love to hear feedback on this
On Friday, 15 November 2013 at 07:30:07 UTC, Timur Gafarov wrote:
Maybe it would be better to compile D directly into JVM/Dalvik
bytecode?
Oh, absolutely. Like I said though, I don't really know that much
about compilers so I decided to go this route. Also, it's
actually been a pretty fun
On 2013-11-13 20:16, Walter Bright wrote:
It actually generated a very fast regex engine, though Dmitry's work has
since eclipsed it.
Right, a specially tuned engine for that particular regex.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2013-11-13 23:29, Martin Nowak wrote:
Well, codeof is nice but it lacks the parser.
Yes, and the you need to mixin it again. Several unnecessary steps, see
the bottom of:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/l5otb1$1dhi$1...@digitalmars.com?page=13#post-l5vcct:242lit:241:40digitalmars.com
--
On 2013-11-13 23:29, Martin Nowak wrote:
Right, that's the basic functionality we want.
What's not clear is how to get the type of y.
That's what the reflection API is for. I guess many people here know a
lot more about building AST's than me. But here's a simple API:
auto ast = x =
On 2013-11-14 01:37, Tyro[17] wrote:
Your thoughts and concerns please.
I like that you're doing this. But as others have said, I think the
release schedule is too long. Iain has already been complaining several
times that the releases is taking too long time. It gets hard them to
merge
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 07:24:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Because slices are always references, so you have a double
indirection.
Right, that makes sense. Note though that this double indirection
is necessary if you're passing a slice into a function that will
modify its length,
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 00:37:38 UTC, Tyro[17] wrote:
Greetings,
I have accepted the responsibility of preparing the builds for
DMD and would like to engage in conversation about the way
ahead.
The first concern I have is about the build cycle.
... (clip) ...
Your thoughts and
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 07:24:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Because slices are always references, so you have a double
indirection.
Right, that makes sense. Note though that this double indirection
is necessary if you're passing a slice into a function that will
modify its length,
On 14.11.2013. 5:29, Tyro[17] wrote:
On 11/13/13, 11:06 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 11/13/13 7:13 PM, Tyro[17] wrote:
On 11/13/13, 9:46 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 11/13/13 4:37 PM, Tyro[17] wrote:
I'm of the opinion, however, that
the cycle should be six months long. This particular schedule
On 2013-11-14 08:54, dennis luehring wrote:
perfect for the DIP example section - more of these please :)
Done: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP50#C.2B.2B_Namespaces_.28issue_7961.29
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 11/13/2013 11:37 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-11-14 01:16, Walter Bright wrote:
Yes. But that's a good thing. I'd be pretty skeptical of the value of an
AST macro that took 3+4 and changed it so it did something other than
compute 7.
You can still do stupid things like that with
Mike Wey mike-...@example.com wrote in message
news:l60quj$1ace$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 11/13/2013 09:51 AM, Mike James wrote:
Steve Teale steve.te...@britseyeview.com wrote in message
news:sbthddptgdozwiivi...@forum.dlang.org...
I'd like to publicly thank and commend Mike Wey for his hard
Am 14.11.2013 09:40, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
On 2013-11-14 08:54, dennis luehring wrote:
perfect for the DIP example section - more of these please :)
Done: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP50#C.2B.2B_Namespaces_.28issue_7961.29
it would be also nice to have (always) an (if possible) string mixin
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 08:03:40 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-11-14 01:37, Tyro[17] wrote:
Your thoughts and concerns please.
I like that you're doing this. But as others have said, I think
the release schedule is too long. Iain has already been
complaining several times
Am 14.11.2013 09:53, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 11/13/2013 11:37 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-11-14 01:16, Walter Bright wrote:
Yes. But that's a good thing. I'd be pretty skeptical of the value of an
AST macro that took 3+4 and changed it so it did something other than
compute 7.
You
Am 14.11.2013 10:06, schrieb dennis luehring:
Am 14.11.2013 09:53, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 11/13/2013 11:37 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-11-14 01:16, Walter Bright wrote:
Yes. But that's a good thing. I'd be pretty skeptical of the value of an
AST macro that took 3+4 and changed it so
On 11/13/2013 11:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-11-13 20:19, Walter Bright wrote:
The reflection ability is not something specific to an AST, it could be
added so that any expression node can be reflected. We already do much
of that with __traits.
Yes, I been thinking of ways to expand
On 11/13/2013 5:56 PM, deadalnix wrote:
I think the whole point of macro is to NOT add too much feature to the language.
See for instance the example I gave before to create generator. This can be
added with extra language support (C# async/await is an example). But with
macro, the feature can
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 08:03:40 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-11-14 01:37, Tyro[17] wrote:
Your thoughts and concerns please.
I like that you're doing this. But as others have said, I think
the release schedule is too long. Iain has already been
complaining several times
Am 14.11.2013 10:12, schrieb Walter Bright:
I've also seen the sheer awfulness of what happens with these systems over the
long term. The fascinating thing about this awfulness is people are well aware
of it in everyone's macro libraries but their own.
the same was said about templates AND
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 08:39:36 UTC, luka8088 wrote:
Also vote up for daily snapshots.
Ack.
Ultimately, I could envision a mostly automated release
management:
1. Nightly builds aka alpha versions (auto)
2. Nightly builds which pass testsuite = beta versions (auto)
3. Declare
On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 01:37:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Except that pretty most of your examples don't seem like they
would fail any
more than T.init would. int.max / 2 in so no more valid or
invalid than 0. The
only difference I see would be that by setting
On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 12:19:56 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 11:27:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:09:23
=?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?=.Marques
l...@luismarques.eu@puremagic.com wrote:
I think you will be pleased with the argument,
On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 08:51:18 UTC, Mike James wrote:
Steve Teale steve.te...@britseyeview.com wrote in message
news:sbthddptgdozwiivi...@forum.dlang.org...
I'd like to publicly thank and commend Mike Wey for his hard
work and perseverance on Gtkd.
It is now fully up-to-date with
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:18:08 qznc wrote:
The 6 month cycle for *major* releases, means 6 months until a
release which might break your code. Less for minor bug fix
releases.
It's fallacy to think that bug fixes are less likely to break code. In fact,
based on dmd's history, I
On 2013-11-14 09:39, luka8088 wrote:
Just a wild thought...
Maybe we can have monthly release and still keep it stable. Imagine this
kind of release schedule:
Month # 11 12 1 2 3
2.064 2.065 2.066 2.067 2.068
On 2013-11-14 10:13, Walter Bright wrote:
No, but then you're face with the issue of where those structs are defined.
In druntime, just like MouldeInfo, TypeInfo and similar classes.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Am 14.11.2013 06:05, schrieb Tyro[17]:
On 11/13/13, 11:30 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 11/14/13, Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net wrote:
6 months between releases means a regression that was introduced
in the latest version requires you to wait another 6 months for
the fix which means you are
On 2013-11-14 10:37, Don wrote:
I just can't escape the feeling that class-based runtime polyphorphism
is almost never an ideal solution, and that most of the benefits and
success of OOP languages comes from things other than OOP itself. And I
think it's because OOP is philosophically nonsense
On 2013-11-14 10:02, growler wrote:
Would this still be a problem though if GDC and LDC align to the beta
release schedule?
I would guess so. The problem is that the longer we wait the more code
will have change, which means harder to merge with GC and LDC. Unless
they continuously merge.
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 09:12:38 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
I agree that async/await has to eventually be added to D. I'm
not convinced it can or should be done with AST macros.
Out of curiousity, how would that be implemented without macros?
I could see it being done with macros with
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 10:07:31 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 09:12:38 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
I agree that async/await has to eventually be added to D. I'm
not convinced it can or should be done with AST macros.
Out of curiousity, how would that be
On 11/14/2013 1:08 AM, dennis luehring wrote:
Am 14.11.2013 10:06, schrieb dennis luehring:
Am 14.11.2013 09:53, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 11/13/2013 11:37 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-11-14 01:16, Walter Bright wrote:
Yes. But that's a good thing. I'd be pretty skeptical of the value
On 11/14/2013 2:07 AM, Chris Cain wrote:
I guess I would have thought the exact opposite from you... that this is
precisely something that *should* be done with a library-defined macro.
Again, I reiterate what experience shows happens with macro systems in the long
term.
On 11/14/2013 1:25 AM, dennis luehring wrote:
Am 14.11.2013 10:12, schrieb Walter Bright:
I've also seen the sheer awfulness of what happens with these systems over the
long term. The fascinating thing about this awfulness is people are well aware
of it in everyone's macro libraries but their
On 11/12/2013 1:46 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Sunday, 10 November 2013 at 19:34:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/10/2013 4:13 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Actually, it isn't entirely clear to me why the moduleinfo needs to be exported.
That depends on whether using a module might require to
On 11/12/2013 2:23 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Monday, 11 November 2013 at 04:18:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The compiler would benefit from knowing which modules are from a shared
library, and it needs to anyway in order to distinguish between dllimport and
dllexport.
We didn't found any
On 11/13/2013 4:38 PM, Manu wrote:
How about the rvalue-temp - ref thing? That's getting REALLY tired.
I know, I know :-(
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 10:01:34 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-11-14 10:37, Don wrote:
I just can't escape the feeling that class-based runtime
polyphorphism
is almost never an ideal solution, and that most of the
benefits and
success of OOP languages comes from things other
On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 07:16:40 UTC, KlausO wrote:
Am 13.11.2013 02:21, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 11/12/13 5:10 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
* Pointers and class references: size_t.max - 65_535, i.e.
64K below
the upper memory limit. On all systems I know it can be
safely
Am 14.11.2013 11:28, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 11/12/2013 2:23 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
One possibility is modules listed on the command line are regarded as
export==dllexport, and other modules as export==dllimport.
This of course means that functions may wind up going through the
dllimport
On 14 November 2013 20:51, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 4:38 PM, Manu wrote:
How about the rvalue-temp - ref thing? That's getting REALLY tired.
I know, I know :-(
So, 2.065 then :P
Has anyone done any work with QML and D?
Gustavo Niemeyer is creating a QML package for Go and it is already
getting a lot of traction.
I have a little pet project where I am comparing PyQt5 and Go, and I
would like to try using D as a third variant, but I don't wan't to have
to use Gtk for the
On Saturday, 9 November 2013 at 00:32:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/8/2013 3:33 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Getting a build master :D
We clearly need a better title!
There is a title for that already in the IT world: RELEASE
MANAGER.
However, D project is chaos without any kind of
On 2013-11-14 11:51, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Actually no different than using ADT (Abstract Data Types) popularized
by modular languages like Modula-2, with the added benefit of type
extension and polymorphism.
I had a look at this:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 10:51:31 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 10:01:34 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-11-14 10:37, Don wrote:
I just can't escape the feeling that class-based runtime
polyphorphism
is almost never an ideal solution, and that most of the
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 12:00:26 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
On Saturday, 9 November 2013 at 00:32:56 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/8/2013 3:33 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Getting a build master :D
We clearly need a better title!
There is a title for that already in the IT world: RELEASE
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 05:05:39 UTC, Tyro[17] wrote:
It's been approximately six months since the release of 2.063
(alright five+: May 28 to Nov 5). I don't think too many of us
lost sleep over that. There is nothing ridiculously long about
six months.
I'm not using HEAD either and
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 12:23:29 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-11-14 11:51, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Actually no different than using ADT (Abstract Data Types)
popularized
by modular languages like Modula-2, with the added benefit of
type
extension and polymorphism.
I had a look at
Am 14.11.2013 11:28, schrieb Walter Bright:
This of course means that functions may wind up going through the
dllimport indirection even for calling functions in the same dll, but it
should work.
Also our suggested approach would not have this downside.
Think about phobos. All of phobos and
* If a template mixin, which uses the string mixin, is provided
the syntax will look a bit nicer
It does, as it saves two to four brackets for multi arg signals,
I nevertheless decided against it for the following reasons:
1. Despite being a little more verbose, I like its style better.
On 11/14/13, 8:40 AM, Robert wrote:
* Isn't it better to use an enum for the protection attributes?
Having put some thought into this, while it seems to be, I think it isn't.
Enums in D are scoped, so for the enum:
enum Protection { protected_, private_, none }
Enums in D may be scoped.
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 00:37:38 UTC, Tyro[17] wrote:
...
Your thoughts and concerns please.
Key problem here is that you call by beta something that is
really not a beta. It is short term support release similar to
ones we currently have with a shorter release schedule. And if it
On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 15:07:57 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
That requires co-operation from upstream compiler projects...
distributors
are free to have local patches by all means to force the
compilers to look
in non-standard directories. ;-)
Well, you have co-operated with me
On 12/11/13 21:06, Dicebot wrote:
dlang should supersede d in all domains, it is a simple matter of ambiguity
(I, personally, won't change it whatever poll results are)
I suggest the opposite -- if d is up for grabs, we should grab it and hold on
to it. Ambiguity is best overcome by creating
I know, I know, this question has been asked many times before.
But it came up in a meeting the other day: is there any work
being done on making D an ARM citizen so that _non-trivial_ D
code can be ported to smartphones and the like? If so, what it
the rough time frame?
Is there any chance of htod being improved or ported to other
platforms?
http://dlang.org/htod.html
Is this tool still capable or is it a legacy tool now?
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 15:22:28 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
Is there any chance of htod being improved or ported to other
platforms?
http://dlang.org/htod.html
Is this tool still capable or is it a legacy tool now?
It does not reliably work even on Windows. Legacy.
Use dstep
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 15:25:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 15:22:28 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
Is there any chance of htod being improved or ported to other
platforms?
http://dlang.org/htod.html
Is this tool still capable or is it a legacy tool now?
It
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 14:47:47 UTC, Chris wrote:
I know, I know, this question has been asked many times before.
But it came up in a meeting the other day: is there any work
being done on making D an ARM citizen so that _non-trivial_ D
code can be ported to smartphones and the like?
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 15:31:25 UTC, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 14:47:47 UTC, Chris wrote:
I know, I know, this question has been asked many times
before. But it came up in a meeting the other day: is there
any work being done on making D an ARM citizen so that
Enums in D may be scoped. There is nothing that prevents you
from declaring your enum thus:
enum { protected_, private_, none }
making the shorter version perfectly legal.
mixin(signal!(string, int)(valueChanged, protected_));
Your concern about extra typing by always needing to specify
Excuse me my ignorance. I haven't used DUB for a while now. Don't
know what's wrong. Found no hint on the (h)internet. I it that
the latest version of dmd is too high for dub? Use dmd2.063
instead?
$ dub upgrade
Upgrading project in /home/path/to/project
Triggering update of package vibe-d
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 14:47:47 UTC, Chris wrote:
I know, I know, this question has been asked many times before.
But it came up in a meeting the other day: is there any work
being done on making D an ARM citizen so that _non-trivial_ D
code can be ported to smartphones and the like?
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 16:14:16 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 14:47:47 UTC, Chris wrote:
I know, I know, this question has been asked many times
before. But it came up in a meeting the other day: is there
any work being done on making D an ARM citizen so that
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 15:54:09 UTC, Chris wrote:
Excuse me my ignorance. I haven't used DUB for a while now.
Don't know what's wrong. Found no hint on the (h)internet. I it
that the latest version of dmd is too high for dub? Use
dmd2.063 instead?
$ dub upgrade
Upgrading project in
Am 14.11.2013 16:54, schrieb Chris:
Excuse me my ignorance. I haven't used DUB for a while now. Don't know
what's wrong. Found no hint on the (h)internet. I it that the latest
version of dmd is too high for dub? Use dmd2.063 instead?
$ dub upgrade
Upgrading project in /home/path/to/project
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 16:32:59 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 14.11.2013 16:54, schrieb Chris:
Excuse me my ignorance. I haven't used DUB for a while now.
Don't know
what's wrong. Found no hint on the (h)internet. I it that the
latest
version of dmd is too high for dub? Use dmd2.063
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 16:42:05 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 16:32:59 UTC, Sönke Ludwig
wrote:
Am 14.11.2013 16:54, schrieb Chris:
Excuse me my ignorance. I haven't used DUB for a while now.
Don't know
what's wrong. Found no hint on the (h)internet. I it that
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 09:12:38 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
I do understand this. I've not only extensively used macro
systems, I've designed two successful ones and implemented
other peoples' designs.
I've also seen the sheer awfulness of what happens with these
systems over the
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 15:40:49 UTC, Robert wrote:
Enums in D may be scoped. There is nothing that prevents you
from declaring your enum thus:
enum { protected_, private_, none }
making the shorter version perfectly legal.
mixin(signal!(string, int)(valueChanged, protected_));
Am 14.11.2013 17:42, schrieb Chris:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 16:32:59 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 14.11.2013 16:54, schrieb Chris:
Excuse me my ignorance. I haven't used DUB for a while now. Don't know
what's wrong. Found no hint on the (h)internet. I it that the latest
version of dmd
Am 14.11.2013 08:36, schrieb Rainer Schuetze:
As far as I understand, the optimization avoids generating code for
template instances only _created_ (not defined) by imported modules,
e.g. when needed for semantic analysis inside the imported module, but
never actually referenced by generated
El 14/11/13 17:48, Chris ha escrit:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 16:42:05 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 16:32:59 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 14.11.2013 16:54, schrieb Chris:
Excuse me my ignorance. I haven't used DUB for a while now. Don't know
what's wrong. Found no
On 11/14/2013 9:08 AM, Meta wrote:
What kind of macro systems are you talking about? C-like macros? Assembly
macros? Lisp-like macros? It seems that Jacob's proposed system is similar to
none of these.
See my first comment in this thread - it's an ancestor to this one.
1. I've seen very heavy use of such macros in macro assemblers.
What happens is people use it to invent their own (very
baroque) language on top of the existing assembler one. Anyone
trying to read the code has to learn this new unique language,
and given the limitations of the macro
On 11/14/13 1:37 AM, Don wrote:
I just can't escape the feeling that class-based runtime polyphorphism
is almost never an ideal solution, and that most of the benefits and
success of OOP languages comes from things other than OOP itself. And I
think it's because OOP is philosophically nonsense
On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 13:50:45 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Am Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:23:17 +0100
schrieb Dejan Lekic dejan.le...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 19:50:32 UTC, Marco Leise
wrote:
I've seen people use both 'd' and 'dlang' now, so I created a
poll. Everyone
Scrum etc is for commercial software development. It does not
really work for Open Source development, because people will
always work on what they personally consider most important and
most interesting. In the agile world there is a customer, who
prioritizes work items. This cannot be
On 11/14/13 2:17 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/14/2013 2:07 AM, Chris Cain wrote:
I guess I would have thought the exact opposite from you... that this is
precisely something that *should* be done with a library-defined macro.
Again, I reiterate what experience shows happens with macro
First: Does 2.064 fully support shared libraries? It seems there
were previous indications that it would.
Second: is it possible to change forum name, or will the
automatic spam filters object?
On 11/14/13, Sönke Ludwig slud...@outerproduct.org wrote:
Just a little personal impression - it seems like during 2.064's
development, more people than ever have switched to DMD HEAD instead of
the last release version. This made it much more burdensome to support
public libraries, because
Am Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:11:17 +0100
schrieb Dejan Lekic dejan.le...@gmail.com:
On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 13:50:45 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
I don't want to be limited to one installation of Phobos.
That's why there is no none option. It is required to have
e.g.:
On 11/14/13 10:23 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
Scrum etc is for commercial software development. It does not really work for
Open Source
development, because people will always work on what they personally consider
most important and
most interesting. In the agile world there is a customer, who
On 11/14/13 1:36 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 01:37:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Except that pretty most of your examples don't seem like they would fail any
more than T.init would. int.max / 2 in so no more valid or invalid than 0. The
only difference I see
On 2013-11-14 17:21, Chris wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Kai. That's good news, however iOS and Android
support is crucial. I hope D can soon be ported to ARM, it's just too
important.
If you want to do anything useful on iOS you need to use Objective-C
libraries, for that you bascilly need
On 2013-11-14 19:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
FWIW Walter talked me back around 2005-2006 into abandoning my own ideas
about languages with configurable syntax.
There are quite a few failings about comparing programming languages
against natural languages, but here's one that I think does
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 17:55:57 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:08 AM, Meta wrote:
What kind of macro systems are you talking about? C-like
macros? Assembly
macros? Lisp-like macros? It seems that Jacob's proposed
system is similar to
none of these.
See my first comment
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 19:22:08 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 17:55:57 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:08 AM, Meta wrote:
What kind of macro systems are you talking about? C-like
macros? Assembly
macros? Lisp-like macros? It seems that Jacob's proposed
On 11/12/2013 09:14 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/12/13 12:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
...
An argument for macros would have to do a
lot more than 'we don't need __FILE__ etc. anymore'
...
It's very simple. Timon got into that part as if it were important. I pointed out it's
not
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 19:27:42 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
At the top of the page you should have view mode links which
supports a threaded view.
Neat. I have my browser set up to auto-login, so I rarely, if
ever, have to look up there.
On 11/11/2013 12:37 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/10/13 3:21 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/10/2013 11:43 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It seems we could even get rid of __FILE__,__LINE__,__MODULE__ with AST
macros.
This would be a very small advantage. The special variables hardly
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 18:23:20 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/14/13 2:17 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/14/2013 2:07 AM, Chris Cain wrote:
I guess I would have thought the exact opposite from you...
that this is
precisely something that *should* be done with a
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 18:23:20 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/14/13 2:17 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/14/2013 2:07 AM, Chris Cain wrote:
I guess I would have thought the exact opposite from you...
that this is
precisely something that *should* be done with a
1 - 100 of 321 matches
Mail list logo
