On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 05:46:06AM +, MysticZach via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> As far as syntax subtrees not belonging to their parent, I can see
> where the cognitive dissonance comes from. But it just doesn't seem
> that bad to me, since contracts are always executed as if they are
> seque
Lack of verbosity.
Clear concise code, thanks to the automatic initialization of
class members, native strings/arrays/maps/slices, UFCS,
declaration-order independence, etc.
class TOTO
{
bool IsCool;
int Age;
TUTU[] Tutus;
TOTO[string] Totos;
void Foo( TUTU tutu )
{
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
Congratulations! Great achievement.
- Johan
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 01:51:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Is getting a whole lot better:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6918
You can now build D executables that do not link in anything
from Phobos - only from the standard C library.
Very cool - this plus Adam's changes.
The next lo
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 19:34:53 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
This is a sticky point about D's current DbC implementation
that myself and several others feel is a design flaw. In
particular, that in-contracts are executed as part of the
*callee*, when the intent of DbC is really that it is the
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 00:48:25 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hi,
I am currently trying to modernize the D code example roulette
on the dlang.org front page [1]. Hence, I would love to hear
about your favorite feature(s) in D.
Ideas:
- favorite language construct
- favorite code sample
- "only possib
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 00:48:25 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hi,
I am currently trying to modernize the D code example roulette
on the dlang.org front page [1]. Hence, I would love to hear
about your favorite feature(s) in D.
Ideas:
- favorite language construct
- favorite code sample
- "only possib
On Sunday, 18 June 2017 at 21:47:48 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
[snip]
Windows has been a bit of a pain, but mostly from the native
code library side. It should be easy to install google snappy
right? On Linux it is. On Windows, not so much... And that's
just one library.
vcpkg is making i
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 00:27:38 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 21.06.2017 19:39, MysticZach wrote:
My counterargument to that is that it's possible that the
cognitive dissonance only occurs because of what people are
used to, rather than what is inherent to the syntax.
This is a purely philo
"friendship ".writeln = ((_) => "is"~_)(" magic");
"friendship ".writeln = ((_) => "is"~_)(" magic");
just couldn't resist the temptaion, sorry.
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I join in the congratulations. Iain, you rock!
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 22:11:04 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
This way, you'll end up having to port all of druntime to your
target, though, only to then throw away considerable amounts of
work that went into the parts you don't want to use.
You are correct, but if you omit certain parts
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 00:48:25 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hi,
I am currently trying to modernize the D code example roulette
on the dlang.org front page [1]. Hence, I would love to hear
about your favorite feature(s) in D.
A couple more:
- std.conv.to - Safe, convenient conversions that just wor
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 01:42:10 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
A very simple vibe app could be added using dub's single-file
package format.
Hmm this is a great idea, but it wouldn't be "runnable" on the
web.
Here's a PR for discussion:
https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1763
Somethi
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 01:13:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Slices! And preferably in an example where it beats C
performance by not needing to duplicate strings everywhere.
There's one in the queue, feel free to vote for or destroy it:
https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1756
Built-in
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:37:03 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
we have a *working* "better C".
I applied my two PRs along with Walter's patch and now have
runtimeless D actually working.
Take a look at this:
// dmd still assumes these are present
// and they are in the C lib, but n
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 20:11:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
All I did was make them do what the host C compiler does.
I propose that the reason the host C compiler does it is because
it is a useful behavior.
If these little strings actually are too large, you can easily
suppress it by
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 01:13:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:48:25AM +, Seb via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[snip]
Slices! And preferably in an example where it beats C
performance by not needing to duplicate strings everywhere.
...
For slices the example in blog p
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 00:48:25 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hi,
I am currently trying to modernize the D code example roulette
on the dlang.org front page [1]. Hence, I would love to hear
about your favorite feature(s) in D.
Ideas:
- favorite language construct
- favorite code sample
- "only possib
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 00:48:25 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hi,
I am currently trying to modernize the D code example roulette
on the dlang.org front page [1]. Hence, I would love to hear
about your favorite feature(s) in D.
Ideas:
- favorite language construct
- favorite code sample
- "only possib
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:48:25AM +, Seb via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently trying to modernize the D code example roulette on the
> dlang.org front page [1]. Hence, I would love to hear about your
> favorite feature(s) in D.
>
> Ideas:
> - favorite language construct
> - favor
My fav is that familiar code just works.
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 00:48:25 UTC, Seb wrote:
I would love to hear about your favorite feature(s) in D.
Beginning with most favorite:
- CTFE
- static if - If you don't consider that part of CTFE
- Template Mixins
- Templates - Pretty much goes along with the top 2
- String Mixins
Hi,
I am currently trying to modernize the D code example roulette on
the dlang.org front page [1]. Hence, I would love to hear about
your favorite feature(s) in D.
Ideas:
- favorite language construct
- favorite code sample
- "only possible in D"
Before you ask, yes - I want to add a couple
On 21.06.2017 19:39, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:18:21 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 21.06.2017 02:51, MysticZach wrote:
I think people could get used to the cognitive dissonance.
That's really not what D is about.
My counterargument to that is that it's possible that th
On 6/21/2017 9:24 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
If you want bugzilla entries
It isn't a question of me "wanting" bugzilla entries or me "liking" bugzilla (as
another member recently put it). It's our process so that issues can be logged,
tracked, changelogs compiled, etc. Please follow our process
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 22:19:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Finally, the moral of the story is that had I written unittests
for compile(), I would have caught this bug much earlier than I
did.
Also, DRY. Writing the same code more than once is always a
recipe for disaster. It's bitten me so
Never thought to mention these two things in the same subject line?
Haha, well today I finally have reason to. This post is about an obscure
bug I encountered today in one of my projects, with a moral lesson on
why you really, really, ought to be using unittest blocks everywhere.
First, a bit of a
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 16:10:41 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
My idea is to build the whole thing, see what the code size and
performance is, and then one by one reduce things down as
needed.
Starting from nothing so far has been a bit of a none starter!
This way, you'll end up having to p
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now,
where commenters are asking questions about D.
Terrific news, con
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
Nice job Iain ... Especially after 6 years pushing for it and the
whole rewrite.
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now,
where commenters are asking questions about D.
Many thanks and co
On 6/21/2017 8:11 AM, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now, where commenters are
asking questions about D.
Pretty dazz! Made my week!
On 6/21/2017 6:21 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
If you are seriously
concerned about the bytes, why include them in -betterC?
All I did was make them do what the host C compiler does.
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 18:35:33 UTC, data pulverizer wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 12:46:19 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I just hope that we can get some operator overloading so that
I don't have to write mtimes all over the place. My ideal
would be a DIP that adds the option to overload opBin
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:18:18PM +, MysticZach via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...] Or are all contracts basically just fancy sugar for asserts at
> the beginning and end of a function body?
[...]
This is a sticky point about D's current DbC implementation that myself
and several others feel is
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 18:04:07 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 17:55:05 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
Question: If `assert` itself allowed a user-defined hook, what
would the remaining justification be for decoupling `in` and
`out` contracts from the `assert` logic?
On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 12:46:19 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I just hope that we can get some operator overloading so that I
don't have to write mtimes all over the place. My ideal would
be a DIP that adds the option to overload opBinary for \, .+,
.-, .*, ./. Lubeck could use \ for inverse, .+ etc.
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now,
where commenters are asking questions about D.
As already mention
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 17:55:05 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
This would be added flexibility, rather than a
one-size-fits-all solution. So the word "universal" is a little
deceptive. The options could also include a user-defined hook
for assert.
Question: If `assert` itself allowed a user-
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 17:38:02 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
Well, for me it would be this:
- The compact syntax with `in (cond)` and `out (ident)(cond)`
- Don't lower those contracts directly to any fixed
implementation; lower them to a template (similar to what I
posted) that you stick
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 17:38:02 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
But another option is simply to upgrade `assert` to make sure
it offers what everyone wants.
That would be really cool, but I doubt it will be feasible
here. I think that in this case it will more likely end up with
everyone h
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
+1. Awesome!
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:18:21 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 21.06.2017 02:51, MysticZach wrote:
I think people could get used to the cognitive dissonance.
That's really not what D is about.
My counterargument to that is that it's possible that the
cognitive dissonance only occurs beca
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 16:52:24 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
Well I'd be just as happy expanding the design limits of the
language, i.e. `assert`, if that were a better option. The
issue you raise is just how different are `in` and `out`
contracts from regular `assert` contracts.
Well, a c
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 16:23:53 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
void foo()
{
int bar(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in (args[0] != 0)
in (args[1] > 1)
out /*whoops, forgot `( )`*/(result) { ... }
do { ... }
while (true); // Error: while statement cannot c
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 14:49:09 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 13:24:24 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
So weird how this discussion is happening in parallel with
this other discussion :-) :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/rkdpuuggltowhqmcm...@forum.dlang.org
It is, th
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now,
where commenters are asking questions about D.
Congratulations in
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:37:03 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Then, the last thing from my complaint list (which I wrote in
TWID and emailed to you back October) is that struct
destructors don't work
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6923
If you want bugzilla entries you can make them
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 14:22:52 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
If you do accidentally forget the extra set of parens on the
`out` contract, you would get "Error: `do` expected before
function body after a bracketed `out` contract" at the end of
the function.
(If, however, it a happens to
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:45:32 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 14:53:04 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
when trying to compile I'm getting lots of errors like this
one:
C:\dev\repos\druntime\src\gc\impl\manual\gc.d(28): Error:
module config is in file 'gc\config.d'
Am Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:44:08 +
schrieb Nordlöw :
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> > the gcc tree:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
> >
> > Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
> >
> > I found out because it's on the front page of HN
Am Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:11:39 +
schrieb Joakim :
> the gcc tree:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
>
> Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
>
> I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now, where
> commenters are asking questions about D.
Awesome! A
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 14:53:04 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
when trying to compile I'm getting lots of errors like this one:
C:\dev\repos\druntime\src\gc\impl\manual\gc.d(28): Error:
module config is in file 'gc\config.d' which cannot be read
import path[0] =
C:\Users\danw\AvalonStudio\A
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
BTW: Thanks, Ian!
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now,
where commenters are asking questions about D.
Which frontend ver
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now,
where commenters are asking questions about D.
Awesome, congratul
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 04:45:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Please file bugzilla issues for remaining problems.
I'll do you one better: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6922
It is a trivial patch to hack fix the big issue I have. Then the
real fix is what Lucia is working on, based on her
On 21.06.2017 02:51, MysticZach wrote:
I think people could get used to the cognitive dissonance.
That's really not what D is about.
I've already gotten used to it just by writing this DIP.
I think it is likely that you are an outlier.
If such an alternative checking system is utilized,
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now,
where commenters are asking questions about D.
It's on reddit, to
the gcc tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html
Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :)
I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now, where
commenters are asking questions about D.
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 14:53:04 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 19:44:46 UTC, kinke wrote:
[...]
when trying to compile I'm getting lots of errors like this one:
C:\dev\repos\druntime\src\gc\impl\manual\gc.d(28): Error:
module config is in file 'gc\config.d' which
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 19:44:46 UTC, kinke wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 17:52:59 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
How do I link in the run time and gc, etc?
In your case, you firstly need to cross-compile druntime to
your target. This means compiling most files in the src
subdirectory of
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 13:24:24 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
So weird how this discussion is happening in parallel with this
other discussion :-) :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/rkdpuuggltowhqmcm...@forum.dlang.org
It is, though as I have pointer out over there, I would really
like to decou
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 14:11:58 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
I'm not the best at documentation. Funnily enough, I made an
effort with reggae, which might just show how bad I am at this.
Ha, well maybe ask one of the users then?
There's not much to compare/constrast - dub is a package
ma
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 13:53:02 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 10:51:39 UTC, ketmar wrote:
there, of course, *IS* The difference. besides the aesthetical
one (seeing failed condition immediately "clicks" in your
head, and generic "assertion failed" message is only
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 14:00:33 UTC, ketmar wrote:
i did in aliced: just added printing of `assert` condition.
that's all. no variable dumps, no other things -- just
`.toChar()` the condition, and print it. and you know what? it
is *surprisingly* effective, eats *no* additional compiler
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 13:11:10 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
[...]
My fix would be to require two sets of parentheses for the new
conditional, like so:
OutStatement:
...
// new version
out ( Identifier ) ( IfCondition )
out ( ) ( IfCondition )
This makes the grammar unambiguous
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 19:38:14 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 19:06:05 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
(Abscissa) wrote:
On 06/19/2017 04:06 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Reggae is D's pitch in the CMake and Meson class of
meta-build tools.
Why aren't all the D compil
p.s.: `assert` is not there to debug your code, it is there to *guard* your
code. if it is not clear what is wrong from printing ONLY failed condition
(without variable values), then you have to debug it "for real".
MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 10:51:39 UTC, ketmar wrote:
there, of course, *IS* The difference. besides the aesthetical one
(seeing failed condition immediately "clicks" in your head, and generic
"assertion failed" message is only frustrating), there may be the case
when so
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 10:51:39 UTC, ketmar wrote:
there, of course, *IS* The difference. besides the aesthetical
one (seeing failed condition immediately "clicks" in your head,
and generic "assertion failed" message is only frustrating),
there may be the case when source code changed si
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:10:33 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 05:19:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Umm... I think we're not quite on the same page here. What
*else* are people supposed to use inside their contracts
besides the built-in assert??
I believe `assert` wou
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 23:43:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Those strings eat up space and are of pretty marginal utility.
Don't want to make assert's so bloatsome that people are
discouraged from using them.
Ah, so that's why you exclude the strings in -betterC whose main
reason for exist
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 12:05:55 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:53:40 UTC, meppl wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:27:20 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:15:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 04:16:22 UTC, Mo
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 12:43:46 UTC, meppl wrote:
yeah, i was probably not thinking too carefully about it. My
idea was to keep the code readable, if the contracts are long.
but as long as the "do" must appear behind a '}', everything is
still fine, more or less.
both are readable, b
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 12:05:55 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:53:40 UTC, meppl wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:27:20 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:15:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 04:16:22 UTC, Mor
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:53:40 UTC, meppl wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:27:20 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:15:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 04:16:22 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.leng
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 11:31:41 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
[...]
Sorry for double post, please ignore this one.
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:10:33 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 05:19:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 01:06:40AM +, MysticZach via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 21:04:16 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
> This is much much bet
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:10:33 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 05:19:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 01:06:40AM +, MysticZach via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 21:04:16 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
> This is much much bet
Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 06:21:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
but refusing to generate such strings for *all* code
They are not useful enough for that, in 99% of cases location of assert
is enough to know what's wrong, when it isn't, the string is not going to
tell where it went
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 06:21:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
but refusing to generate such strings for *all* code
They are not useful enough for that, in 99% of cases location of
assert is enough to know what's wrong, when it isn't, the string
is not going to tell where it went wrong, so you nee
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:27:20 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:15:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 04:16:22 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in (args[0] != 0)
in (args[1] > 1)
out (resu
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:12:56 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:38:21 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 14:12:36 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
Firstly who do we need to talk to about the bloat in LDC?
I'll be happy to help with the LDC stuff o
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:15:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 04:16:22 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in (args[0] != 0)
in (args[1] > 1)
out (result => result > 0) { ... }
---
- in contracts take a parenthesi
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:38:21 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 14:12:36 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
Firstly who do we need to talk to about the bloat in LDC?
I'll be happy to help with the LDC stuff once I hand in my
Honours thesis on the 3rd of July, just ask on
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 05:19:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 01:06:40AM +, MysticZach via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 21:04:16 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> This is much much better. The verbosity of contracts isn't
> really the brace, it's
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:25:35 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
Mike, is there an email address I can contact you outside the
forum?
"slavo"~"5150"~AT_SYMBOL~"yahoo"~PERIOD~"com";
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 14:12:36 UTC, Dan Walmsley wrote:
Firstly who do we need to talk to about the bloat in LDC?
I'll be happy to help with the LDC stuff once I hand in my
Honours thesis on the 3rd of July, just ask on
https://gitter.im/ldc-developers/main or send me a message on
gitt
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 00:50:35 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 13:45:31 UTC, Mike wrote:
[...]
The more I think about this, the more it seems like the best
approach. All this time I've been trying to find a way to
build just enough runtime code to support the features
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 04:16:22 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
What *I* need from a DIP that addresses DbC in D (to make it
viable for me) is to make the simple case as easy as possible
to read while not introducing language inconsistencies.
With that in mind I am strongly in favor of the sy
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 00:08:24 UTC, Mike wrote:
GDC may have fixed the problem recently with [2], but I haven't
tested it. Lucia Cojocaru is (was?) also working on addressing
the problem by lowering TypeInfo calls in the compiler to
templates [3].
I've decoupled the code generati
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 00:50:35 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 13:45:31 UTC, Mike wrote:
[...]
The more I think about this, the more it seems like the best
approach. All this time I've been trying to find a way to
build just enough runtime code to support the features
On 6/20/2017 11:54 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2017-06-20 22:44, Walter Bright wrote:
For a C implementation that doesn't support TLS, using it in D with -betterC
won't work.
I'm thinking more of a C implementation where it *does* work. But perhaps you're
not expected to do anything besides
95 matches
Mail list logo
