Or at least that's the impression one might get from reading this Wired
article:
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/googles-house-programming-language-now-runs-phones/?mbid=social_gplus
"""
[Go] is at the forefront of a new breed of languages that can rapidly
execute code across a large number of system
Plus pages are now up for grabs on Google+.
There should be one for D Programming Language.
http://www.google.com/+/business
Hangouts on G+ with Walter and Andrei could be nifty.
--bb
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> The template "std.functional.curry(alias fun, alias arg)" claims to
> "curry fun by tying its first argument to a particular value."
>
> That is not currying; it is partial application. In particular, it is a
> kind of partial
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> On 06/22/2010 01:45 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/21/2010 02:09 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>
>&g
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 02:09 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>
>> Okay. I am in no way trying to say anything negative about TDPL.
>
> [snip]
>
> You are being too kind about this :o). Of course we need an errata list. I
> was hoping I'd need to se
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Bill Baxter, el 21 de junio a las 17:13 me escribiste:
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leandro Lucarella
>> wrote:
>> > goto next case; is a little more verbose but very clear to me :)
>> >
>&g
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> goto next case; is a little more verbose but very clear to me :)
>
> Maybe just next case; is a shorter alternative...
That would be great if "next" were a D keyword. But I don't think
you're going to get Walter to add a keyword just fo
Did anyone suggest "continue case" instead of "continue switch"? That
sounds less ambiguous to me.
--bb
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Well, "goto case" and "goto case XXX" both already exist. Both get the job
I got my collectors edition from Amazon US a few days ago.
I browsed it a bit and it looks like an interesting read even for
someone who basically knows D already. Which is good, because anyone
who knows C or Java basically does already know most of D. I liked
that about Stroustrup's book on C++,
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> BCS Wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC there are a few D users who work for Google (I know there is now
>> > at
>>> least one :D ) but I don't remember who. For that matter, are there
>> > other
>>> D users in the Mountain View/San Jo
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
>
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, but I can actually understand your code. :-(
>
> Yeah, but how long would it take you to be sure that it is handling all
> errors correctly and cleaning up properly in case of tho
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Adam Ruppe wrote:
>
>> That sucks hard. I prefer it to finally{} though, since finally
>> doesn't scale as well in code complexity (it'd do fine in this case,
>> but not if there were nested transactions), but both suck compared to
>> the sca
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>>
>> Of course, using a decent editor will prevent it: if the editor is
>> able to handle indentation correctly, it will indent the writeln in
>> the same column as the for which makes the problem appear immedia
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Don wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>>
>> Don:
>>>
>>> When is it better to do it that way, rather than just iterating over all
>>> elements, and then completely empty the container?
>>> (Just curious -- I'm having trouble thinking of a use case for this
>>> feature).
>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:11 PM, bearophile wrote:
>> Bill Baxter:
>>> Do you have any citations of that? All I can find on LuaJIT.org is
>>> comparisons of LuaJIT vs other versions of Lua.
>>
>>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:11 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Bill Baxter:
>> Do you have any citations of that? All I can find on LuaJIT.org is
>> comparisons of LuaJIT vs other versions of Lua.
>
> On my site you can see a version of the SciMark2 benchmark (that contains
>
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:14 AM, bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>
> Compiling programs of a dynamic language like Lua was seen as hopelessly
> inefficient. But today programs running on the the Lua JIT are often faster
> than equivalent FP-heavy D programs compiled with DMD.
Do you have any
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:18 AM, bearophile wrote:
> Results for the "therighttool" site about D:
> http://therighttool.hammerprinciple.com/languages/d
>
> It seems lot of people thinks "This language is likely to be a passing fad"
> about D.
Interesting. But they seem to think the same about a
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM, BCS wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
>> Seems to me the only use is to
>> preserve a few more bits in intermediate computations.
>
> There are some cases where you simply want to keep as much precision as you
> can. In those cases variable precision floats aren't any better
I don't find it that useful either. Seems to me the only use is to
preserve a few more bits in intermediate computations. But finite
precision is finite precision. If you're running up against the
limitations of doubles, then chances are it's not just a few more bits
you need -- you either need
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:44 PM, BCS wrote:
> I just graduated from collage (Yeah!)
Classic. What's next, decoupage? photomontage?
> and got a job (Ye-ha!)
Sincere congrats.
--bb
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575057651922457356.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Hopefully Win Mobile 7 will offer some decent competition at last.
Cautiously optimistic here.
--bb
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> What I really want is an archive program that automatically makes a
> subfolder by default *but* detects if the top level inside the archive
> contains nothing more than a single folder and intelligently *not* create a
> new folder in that
Hi there,
I'd be interested in taking a look at it. But I can't promise a whole
lot of feedback. I'm quite busy from now to feb 26.
--bb
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Norbert Nemec wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> after last week's decision to pick up the work on numerical arrays, things
> are
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:36 AM, bearophile wrote:
> I sometimes have used an upper case Q for the ? (it stands for Question mark):
> sortedQ()
I would think that was a shorthand for some kind of "sorted queue"
thing if I ran into it in the wild.
--bb
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> I have had one use for templates that are both stand-alone and mixed
>> in -- that's collections of aliases and utility functions based on a
>> particular type.
>
>
> You
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Michel Fortin
wrote:
> On 2010-02-14 18:12:45 -0500, Bill Baxter said:
>
>> That's useful as a standalone:
>> MeshTypes!(MyMeshT).VectorT
>> But also mixed into some class that deals with meshes
>> class MeshManipulat
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Right now, mixins are defined and used as:
>
> template foo(T) { declarations... }
>
> mixin foo!(int) handle;
>
> The proposal is to switch it around:
>
> mixin template foo(T) { declarations... }
>
> foo!(int) handle;
>
> to follow
> I imagine a lot of people here don't remember me when I left a few years ago
> to focus on a free game called league of legends (www.leagueoflegends.com).
> Its been released however we're still working on making it even better.
Just out of curiosity, what's the business model? Is there in-gam
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> John D wrote:
>>
>> "Walter Bright" wrote in message
>> news:hjg3b0$el...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
You know, even though I'm one of the resident Google-haters here, I have
to admit, I saw a thing on T
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:43:50 -0500, Pelle Månsson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/29/2010 07:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Note in the anecdote above, both users would have
been satisfied i
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Michel Fortin
wrote:
> On 2010-01-29 12:56:43 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
> said:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:23:24 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>> wrote:
Consider:
struct Stack(T) {
T pop();
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
> news:hjt449$5d...@digitalmars.com...
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>>>
>>>> The problem is n
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Pelle Månsson wrote:
>>
>> On 01/28/2010 11:23 PM, Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>
I agree. So where's the consensus? Things seemed so clear when people
were beaten with @property over their
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Andrei A
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>&g
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>>
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>>>> byLine() is a function. It changes the state of stdin. Calling it
>>>> consecutively will in general result in different re
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:59:30 -0
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Michiel Helvensteijn
wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
foreach (line; stdin.byLine()) { ... }
vs.
foreach (line; stdin.byLine) { ... }
How do I choose?
>>>
>>> byLine is a property. It is fetching a range on stdin.
>>>
>>> -S
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:59:30 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> foreach (line; stdin.byLine()) { ... }
>>>
>>> vs.
>>>
>>> foreach (line; stdin.byLine) { ... }
>>>
>>> How do I choose?
>>
>>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> retard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Linux the processes almost always stay on main memory, and only start
>>> to fill swap when running out of main memory. So unless you have no swap set
>>> up, OOM cannot happen unless
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>
>> What do you think? I understand it is unlikely to make its way into D2
>> (D3?), but is it sound? Do you think it's useless, or do you think that
>> additional consistency (and functionality) is worthwhile?
>
> Wha
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
wrote:
> Denis Koroskin Wrote:
>
>> You know, I'm not usually a guy who proposes radical changes to the
>> language. I like the way D is, but there are a few proposals that keep
>> popping up once in a while without a good rationale, and this si
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:12:06 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
>
>> I think we are too late for D2, the book is pretty much finished except
>> for the concurrency chapter. It is a great idea though, I would have loved
>> to see th
This blog post points to part of a talk by Anders Hejlsberg at PDC
talking about where they're going with C# 4.0:
http://dobbscodetalk.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=C-Sharp-4.0-with-a-REPL-Read-Eval-Print-Loop-.html&Itemid=29
The part of this vid
http://channel9.msdn.com/pdc2008/TL16/
which
d Wheeler
> But that also slows code down a little :-)
>
>
>
> Bill Baxter:
>
> Static interfaces are an easy idea, it was discussed some weeks ago, and
> probably it's not too much hard to implement in the language. I like them
> enough, but they
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> merlin wrote:
>> do you think that D2 would be worth including at some point in the
>> future if we had some benchmark implementations showing off some of it's
>> more functional nature?
>
> Last year I quadrupled what I have to do: by making me
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:28 AM, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a...@a.a)'s article
>> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it that templated functions can't be
>> virtual?
>
> This is an unfortunate consequence of compilation model leaking out into
> language
> design. You're suppos
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
>>
>> == Quote from retard (r...@tard.com.invalid)'s article
>>>
>>> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:10:24 +, dsimcha wrote:
2. Native look and feel. IMHO this is very overrated. I've never
found that a Java-ish
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:05 AM, bearophile wrote:
> dsimcha:
>
>> I'm thinking of giving another try to writing a plotting library for D.
>
> I like what you have written.
> I suggest this as the rendering layer, because it's beyond awesome (used in
> MatPlotLib too):
> http://www.antigrain.com/
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> Bill Baxter:
>> And Go qualifies because it has some CSP implementation built in?
>
> Go qualifies for the moment - it's an experiment - maybe it'll turn out not
> to be
> so interesting after all, and in gola
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Bill Baxter:
>> D used to be there, but the folks running the shootout de-listed it
>> for some reason.
>> Maybe it was lack of a 64-bit compiler?
>
> I think the notgentle person that manages the Shootout site
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM, S < wrote:
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=threadring&lang=all
>
> 2.3Go 6g 8g #3 20.6120.613,272347 0% 100% 0% 0%
>
> Interestingly, the CPU load is kind of comical for something spawning so
> many threads.
>
> Anyone good at optimize
Found this link about 0^^0:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html
I think this explains pretty well why Wolfram is justified in saying
0^^0 is indeterminate, but a PL like D is perfectly justified in
saying it's 1.
In particular the article asserts: "Consensus has recently been b
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Don wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Then at least why not make the type of the exponent unsigned?
>>>> That
>>>> gives the type
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Don wrote:
>>> * If y == 0, x ^^ y is 1.
>>
>> Need to mention what happens when x is also 0.
>
> No. 0^^0 is 1, as well.
Is it? That's rather embarrassing for Wolfram Alpha, then (and
presumably Mathematica, too) since they have it as "indeterminate":
http:/
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
>> I agree. Then at least why not make the type of the exponent unsigned? That
>> gives the type system a fighting chance (via e.g. value range propagation).
>> Give Willy a chance!
>
> Honestly, I don't really under
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Lukas Pinkowski wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> I say you should completely chop it then. Leaving it in for literals
>> only leaves a mess that's hard to justify.
>> I have often written things like
>>
>> glVertex2f(-
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:17 PM, hehe45 wrote:
> In c++ it is valid syntax to have trailing commas at the and of enum
> definitions:
> enum {a, b, c, };
> This would be a useful addition to D too.
>
> The enum class syntax from c++0x should also adopted by D, this would allow
> named enums which
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:11 PM, hehe45 wrote:
> I haven't been following the newgroup closely, so I don't know if this has
> already been discussed, but I wanted to make a few suggestions before D2 is
> finalized.
> I think the "body" keyword is completly useless unless it is required because
>
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Phil Deets wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:44:46 -0500, Phil Deets wrote:
>
>> I think n is always non-negative in the trig series, but some Laurent
>> series use negative n values. So (-1)^^n might be useful for negative n, but
>> you could always rewrite it as (n
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What I'd like would be a solid rationale for the choice. Off the top of
>>> my
>&g
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Don wrote:
> Based on everyone's comments, this is what I have come up with:
>
>
> x ^^ y is right associative, and has a precedence intermediate between
> multiplication and unary operators.
Is that consistent with math? I think in math they
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> What I'd like would be a solid rationale for the choice. Off the top of my
> head and while my hat is off to your math skills and experience, I have
> trouble understanding the soundness of making int^^int yield an int, for the
> follo
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Negative exponent values are the only ones with an issue. You can't
>> even write square-root etc with pow using only integers. The argument
>> would have to be a float to e
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Andrei
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Bill Baxter:
>
>> Holy smokes! You actually file bugs in the LLVM database?!
>
> Don't ask me why. Eleven so far, you can't find five of them because in the
> beginning another person has filed them for me in a
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The fundamental reason why I want opPo
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>>
>> The fundamental reason why I want opPow so badly is in fact not even how
>> often I use it. If that was the case, I'd want a special "writefln" operator
>> as well. The main reason is that exponentiation
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Lars T. Kyllingstad:
>> I also seem to remember someone (was it Don or bearophile, perhaps?)
>> listing various optimisation possibilities that are more readily
>> available if ^^ is a built-in operator.
>
> It was Don, I think.
> Those optimizat
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>>
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>
>>> Nice analysis. IMHO this should lead us to reconsider the necessity of
>>> "^^" in the first place. It seems to be adding too little real value
>>> compared to the comp
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Don wrote:
> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>>
>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
What will removing it gain you?
>>>
>>> Sancta simplicitas.
>>
>> Hm.. I don't really buy that argument.
>>
>> I see you and Walter removing/witholding things (incomparability
>> opera
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Kevin Bealer wrote:
> I think I have a solution to some problems that occur in OO design. The
> problems occurs when a method can be implemented that provides a great
> functionality for a specific class, but which it is not valid for its
> subclasses without e
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM, BCS wrote:
> Hello Sergey,
>
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm arguing is that (at least for
>>> me) the primary advantages of metaprogramming are static checks (for
>>> non-perf benefits) and performance. Both of these must be done at
>>>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>>
>>> Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
>>>>
>>>> Leandro Lucarella wro
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>
>> Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
>>>
>>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I develop twice as fast in Python than in D. Of course this is only me,
but that's where I think
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>
>> Good counterpoints to my argument. So I give up on that line.
>>
>> Here's another, how do you implement the opBinary_r operators with
>> opDispatch?
>
> Ki
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
>> How about this: given only a catch-all opDispatch which implements
>> dynamic dispatch, the compiler cannot statically determine if
>> operators are really implemented or not.
>
> Why does it have to?
> proposed implementation:
>
> com
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> On 12/1/2009 3:21 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> I think the dynamic bit that D lacks and many interpreters have is
>> eval(someString).
>
> I wonder if ddmd can be shoehorned into that…
Only if you make the whole compiler part of the
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:01:41 -0500, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
>>>
&
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't opBinar
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
> wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>>> Isn't opBinary almost identical to opDispatch? The only difference I
>>> see is that opBinary works with operators as the 'symbol' and
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Pelle Månsson
> wrote:
>>> It's a bit difficult to see a very thin operator mask a linear operation,
>>> but I'm thinking maybe "x in y" could be defined if y is
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Pelle Månsson wrote:
>> It's a bit difficult to see a very thin operator mask a linear operation,
>> but I'm thinking maybe "x in y" could be defined if y is a compile-time
>> array. In that case, the compiler knows the operation and the operand so it
>> may decide
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Don wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Lutger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> The feature isn't very dynamic since the dispatch rules a
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> "bugzilla 3558 Optimizer bug results in false if condition being taken"
>> Excellent. That's a much more useful commit message.
>
> Yah, the only problem is that's t
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Sean Kelly, el 1 de diciembre a las 11:52 me escribiste:
>> Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
>>
>> > Speaking of improving the VCS usage, how about tagging?
>>
>> An easy intermediate step would be to include the SVN revision numbers
>> of Phobos
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:24:17 -0500, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> An idea I just had when thinking about how ugly opDispatch and
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:16:06 -0500, Leandro Lucarella
> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of improving the VCS usage, how about tagging?
>>
>> It would be nice if a tag is created for each dmd, phobos and druntime
>> repositories, sometimes I want
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> An idea I just had when thinking about how ugly opDispatch and opBinary
> operators will be if we get those was, wouldn't it be cool if the compiler
> could translate:
>
> myTemplateMethod("abc" || "def")() if(condition) {}
>
> to
>
> m
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Lutger wrote:
>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>
>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:05:16 +0300, Ary Borenszweig
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>&
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Lutger wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>
>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:05:16 +0300, Ary Borenszweig
>>> wrote:
>>>
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> retard wrote:
>> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:16:47 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> Ary
2009/12/1 Ary Borenszweig :
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:47:43 +0300, Ary Borenszweig
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:05:16 +0300, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>
>> retard wrote:
>>>
"bugzilla 3558 Optimizer bug results in false if condition being taken"
Excellent. That's a much more useful commit message.
Thanks,
--bb
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> So we can overload on @property-ness?
>
> No.
>
>> I.e. this works
>>
>> struct S
>> {
>> @property
>> float x() { return 1.0f; }
>> float x() { ret
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Also how does this interact with property syntax?
>
> Define opDispatch with @property.
So we can overload on @property-ness? I.e. this works
struct S
{
@property
float x() { return 1.0f; }
fl
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Alvaro Castro-Castilla
wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> Simen kjaeraas wrote:
>> > I'm already in love with this feature.
>>
>> So am I. It seems to be incredibly powerful.
>>
>> Looks to me you can do things like:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 5. the already mentioned "swizzl
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>> So am I. It seems to be incredibly powerful.
>
> Very powerful things can be dangerous too, they can lead to bugs, etc.
I'm a bit concerned about what this does to introspection.
With a dynamic language like Python, adding run
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Álvaro Castro-Castilla wrote:
>>
>> It does. Shouldn't this work also?
>>
>> struct foo {
>> void opDispatch( string name, T... )( T values ) { } }
>>
>> void main( ) {
>> f
1 - 100 of 855 matches
Mail list logo
