On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:42:45 -0500, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Currently, the type is determined by the type of the first element
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, xx x...@xx.com wrote:
In Go (from what I understand), a struct is stack allocated with
x := Struct();
and heap allocated with
x := Struct();
It's a nice trick, but I don't find it intuitive. Getting address of an
object (re)allocates it? Literal that
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:42 PM, xx x...@xx.com wrote:
Next in the series of How about Go's :
(int var1, float var2) function();
is much nicer, logical and consistent than:
int function(out float var2);
Of course this requires multiple assignment, but that's another cool thing.
Did
Looks interesting.
* Uses a module system
* Built-in arrays are value types.
* Python like slice syntx a[lo:hi]
* immutable strings
* switch has no break. Use fallthrough to fallthrough.
* Nested functions
* First class tuples ( a,b = func(), a,b=b,a )
* := for assignment
* Uses var to
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM, grauzone n...@example.net wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
When I originally worked out ideas for D, there were many requests from
the C and C++ community for a 'strong' typedef, and so I put one in D. I
didn't think about it too much, just assumed that it was a
2009/11/11 Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
Well, range doesn't own any of the contents it covers, so deep copy is
impossible.
Yet, there is also .dup array property which is pretends to be a standard
way of creating instance copies.
Well so the
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Looks interesting.
* Uses a module system
* Built-in arrays are value types.
* Python like slice syntx a[lo:hi]
* immutable strings
* switch has no break. Use fallthrough
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote:
Of course, being a longtime D user, that no new systems programming
language has been developed in the last ten years kinda pisses me
off...
No new *major* systems language is what they said. Major is a
marketing word that can
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
It's harder to find those when you're skimming through trying to get
the highlights with a 5 minute limit. :-) What are some things is it
missing?
Off the top of my head, some major ones
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
But that's a good list. In the video he makes it sound like generics
will probably happen eventually, they're just not sure how best to do
it yet.
Just noticed, The Language FAQ[1] says the same thing about
exceptions
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
One option that hasn't been mentioned:
private ref int myInt() {
static int theInt;
return theInt;
}
void fun(T)(T arg) {
... use myInt() ...
}
Is that a joke? That just replaces global
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
One option that hasn't been mentioned:
private ref int myInt() {
static int theInt
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
But that's a good list. In the video he makes it sound like generics
will probably happen eventually, they're
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-11-11 10:57:20 -0500, Robert Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu said:
* Uses '+' for concatenation
Yeh, I was disappointed by that too.
That's what I dislike the most about it. I quite like the syntax and I quite
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
hasenj wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Message passing for concurrency is a solid solution for many types of
concurrency problems, but it isn't a panacea.
Do you think D would benefit if you add this (or similar)
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 11/10/09 01:27, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Looks like Bill Baxter is giving a presentation on D Nov. 18
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Justin Johansson n...@spam.com wrote:
Lutger Wrote:
Don wrote:
...
There is a definite use for such as thing. But the existing toString()
is much, much worse than useless. People think you can do something with
it, but you can't.
eg, people have asked
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Lutger wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
Lutger Wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
I assert that the semantics of toString or similarly named/purposed
methods/functions in many PL's (including and not limited to D) is
ill-defined.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Just out of curiousity, how does someone print out the
value of a BigInt right now?
In Tango, there's just .toHex() and .toDecimalString(). Needs proper
formatting options, it's the biggest thing which isn't done. I hit one too
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:11 AM, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Don:
But the performance would still be very poor, and that's much more
difficult to solve.
This may help:
http://fredrik-j.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-division-in-python-faster.html
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Lutger wrote:
Don wrote:
...
There is a definite use for such as thing. But the existing toString()
is much, much worse than useless. People think you can do something with
it, but you can't.
eg, people have asked for BigInt to
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
I consider changing a bit D's range model following the better
understanding reflected in this article:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:16 AM, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Bill Baxter:
Maybe it's just my ignorance of BigNum issues, but those links look to
me to be about divsion and not generating string representations. Are
those somehow synonymous in BigInt land?
Look the numeral
2009/11/10 Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:30:20 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Lutger wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
Lutger Wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
I assert
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Phil Deets pjdee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:18:59 -0500, Lutger lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com
wrote:
- why is a UTF-string iterator bidirectional and why is that unexpected?
I think it is wouldn't support random access since accessing the nth
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
Regardless of usefulness (or good design) of such variables, this sounds
extremely dangerous. The compiler must not change semantics of the
program based on optimization. optimizing away such variables
2009/11/10 Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:49:54 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Don wrote:
Lutger wrote:
Don wrote:
...
There is a definite use for such as thing. But the existing
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
@unsafe was suggested (I think by Don) to provide symmetry with @safe and
@trusted. This is a good point, but I'm starting to think that @unsafe is
not a good idea.
For example, one could make an entire module
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
2009/11/10 Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:49:54 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Looks like Bill Baxter is giving a presentation on D Nov. 18!
http://www.nwcpp.org/
Yep, that's right, and I'd be quite grateful to you smart folks here
if you could share your meta-programming favorites with me
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Bill Baxter (wbax...@gmail.com)'s article
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Philippe Sigaud (philippe.sig...@gmail.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
Makes me wonder why
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:46 AM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Bill Baxter (wbax...@gmail.com)'s article
I agree. Those numbers don't seem so bad, particularly if inlining is
possible in the future.
But there's still the issue of how to get both an enumeration and an
unpacked
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Mike Farnsworth
mike.farnswo...@gmail.com wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Michael Farnsworth wrote:
The ldc guys tell me that they didn't
include the llvm vector intrinsics already because they were going to
need either a custom type in the frontend, or else
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
A little while ago I said I'd create a patch for ^^ as an exponentiation.
A couple of people had requested that I make a post to the ng so they'd know
when it happens. Here it is.
This is opPow(),
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:12 AM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hey, I never programmed at all seriously in C++ before coming to D and I
somehow
figured out scope(exit). I'm not even sure you'd be able to pry scope(exit)
out
of my cold, dead hands. I might super-glue it to my hands on my
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Justin Johansson n...@spam.com wrote:
Can you understand my frustration?
Yes, I can certainly understand that it's difficult to use scope()
constructs when you haven't understood what a scope is. But that's
not much of an argument against them.
The same rant
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
What are the chances that D gets auto tuple unpacking for foreach loops before
D2 goes gold? In other words, it would be nice to write:
uint[] foo = [1,2,3,4,5];
uint[] bar = [6,7,8,9,10];
foreach(a, b; zip(foo, bar)) {
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Philippe Sigaud (philippe.sig...@gmail.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
Makes me wonder why noone thought of this until now, or maybe someone did
and I
forgot. How's:
foreach(fooElem, barElem; unpack(zip(foo,
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
You can create them without templates. std.metastrings was created before
CTFE existed, it's rather outdated. It's intended for use with template
metaprogramming, not for use with CTFE.
I posted about this the other day, wouldn't
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Sorry, still no Mac OSX 10.6
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.051.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.036.zip
To Don, Walter, or anyone else who knows:
How hard is it going to be to get variadic CTFE functions working?
Or how hard would it be to get
std.metastrings.Format should be a major workhorse of CTFE string
functions, but it can't be because it's all done using template args.
And I'm assuming it's
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Following the safe D discussions, I've had a bit of a change of mind. Time
for a new strawman.
Based on Andrei's and Cardelli's ideas, I propose that Safe D be defined
as the subset of D that guarantees no
This is the too many fixups bug?!
If so that's great news.
So is it any slower now with things not in ASM?
--bb
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Optlink is written entirely in rather impenetrable assembler code, and is
resistant to understanding
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
rmcguire wrote:
It makes a lot of sense to just say to someone if you want to do
something at compile time, just check the 'static' documentation.
I agree. And goes with static if too.
Andrei
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote:
rmcguire, el 3 de noviembre a las 15:11 me escribiste:
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I really like 'static' as the namespace, it would be awesome if it did not
just
contain 'meta' stuff.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 3 de noviembre a las 16:33 me escribiste:
SafeD is, unfortunately, not finished at the moment. I want to leave
in place a stub that won't lock our
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
SafeD is, unfortunately, not finished at the moment. I want to leave in
place a stub that won't lock our options. Here's what we currently have:
module(system) calvin;
This means calvin can do unsafe
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Derek Parnell de...@psych.ward wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:47:53 +0100, Don wrote:
is(typeof(XXX)) is infamously ugly and unintuitive
__traits(compiles, XXX) is more comprehensible, but just as ugly.
They are giving metaprogramming in D a bad name. I think
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
[I'm moving this from deep inside a TDPL thread, since I think it's
important]
is(typeof(XXX)) is infamously ugly and unintuitive
__traits(compiles, XXX) is more comprehensible, but just as ugly.
They are giving metaprogramming in
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
http://bartoszmilewski.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/what-does-haskell-have-to-do-with-c/
Bartosz's second part of 'Template Metaprogramming Made Easy (Huh?)',
its
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de octubre a las 20:29 me escribiste:
Your test looks something up and then removes it.
Andrei
Well, my extended test case looks something up,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote:
Leandro Lucarella, el 29 de octubre a las 13:21 me escribiste:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de octubre a las 23:38 me escribiste:
It's a rough rough draft, but one for the full chapter on arrays,
associative arrays, and
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:57 AM, KennyTM~ kenn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 29, 09 23:59, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de octubre a las 20:29 me escribiste
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de octubre a las 20:29 me escribiste
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 29 de octubre a las 12:33 me escribiste:
Bill Baxter wrote:
I think bool remove(key) is better than all other designs suggested so far.
I agree with the folks who say it's error-prone. I can
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:04:33 +0300, Chris Nicholson-Sauls
ibisbase...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-10-27 09:07:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
My current thought is to ascribe lhs ~ rhs the same type as lhs (thereby
making ~ consistent with ~= by making lhs ~= rhs same
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pelle Månsson pelle.mans...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-10-27 09:07:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
My current thought
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Pelle Månsson pelle.mans...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pelle Månsson pelle.mans...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-10
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jeremie Pelletier jerem...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
303 pages and counting!
Andrei
Soon the PI level, or at least 10 times PI!
A hundred even. ;-)
--bb
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jeremie Pelletier jerem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
303 pages and counting!
Andrei
Soon the PI level, or at least 10 times
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Jeremie Pelletier jerem...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jeremie Pelletier jerem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
303
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Yigal Chripun yigal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/10/2009 19:41, bearophile wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
The trade-off here is obvious: if you use line continuations like
in python they would be very rare but would not be automatic and
consistent when you do need to
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:44 AM, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
KennyTM~:
Please people, let's edit emails a little, so you don't carry around 30 KB of
useless text :-)
And if all you need is a
re-syntax-ized D with optional semicolon, there is already one here.
It's called
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
language_fan wrote:
Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:07:29 -0400, Robert Jacques thusly wrote:
My issue was that all your example _showed_ was nominal typing. Though I
didn't mention it by name, I did mention that
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:07 PM, BCS n...@anon.com wrote:
Hello bearophile,
BCS:
- it allows long code lines to be folded
This is not a problem, when you have optional semicolons, you add some
syntax to fold long lines. Python uses \ Mathematica uses \\ and so
on. Languages like Scala,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:56 PM, AJ a...@nospam.net wrote:
Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:hbo2ih$2oi...@digitalmars.com...
AJ Wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.u157hfkveav...@localhost.localdomain...
On Wed, 21 Oct
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
3. Remove some element from the container and give it to me
E removeAny();
4. Add an element to the container is possible
bool add(E);
I think any container must support these primitives in O(1),
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:05:39 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing T[]
to a function and then the function resizes the T[].
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:10:20 -0400, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:05:39 -0400, Walter Bright
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
To Andrei, do you really feel comfortable trying to explain this in
your book? It seems like it will be difficult to explain that ~= is
sometimes efficient for appending
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
If your goal is to affect the original array, then you should accept a ref
argument or not append to it.
I think that's an entirely reasonable (and easy to explain) stance.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
I remember seeing a lot of CTFE code that created a dynamic array and then
appended stuff to it, like for example to build a list of prime numbers.
Would that still work with ArrayBuilder?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM, KennyTM~ kenn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 20, 09 03:40, Piotrek wrote:
Bill Baxter pisze:
Just get rid of the the one-argument foreach over AAs altogether and
force
the user to be
explicit about it.
I wouldn't do so. Would anybody do an error by thinking
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Jason House
jason.james.ho...@gmail.com wrote:
dolive Wrote:
will appear d3 ? What are the tasks ? it's not backward compatible
with D2 ? What major changes ?
My understanding is that there will be a significant gap between the
finalization of D2 and the
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Rainer Deyke rain...@eldwood.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
*applause*
'X(x)' and 'new X(x)' have distinct meanings in C++. In Java/C#/D, the
'new' is just line
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
The opEquals among AAs requires probably less than 20 lines of code.
Two persons (plus Walter, of course) have said they don't like to iterate on
the keys first. The other people have kept muzzle shut so I can't tell
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Piotrek star...@tlen.pl wrote:
Bill Baxter pisze:
I think the default should be to iterate over whatever 'in' looks at.
I was almost convinced, because that rule has a sense. But treating normal
arrays and associative array has more sense to me.
fun
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Piotrek star...@tlen.pl wrote:
Bill Baxter pisze:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Piotrek star...@tlen.pl wrote:
Bill Baxter pisze:
I think the default should be to iterate over whatever 'in' looks at.
I was almost convinced, because that rule has a sense
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Fawzi Mohamed fmoha...@mac.com wrote:
On 2009-10-16 11:13:59 +0200, gzp ga...@freemail.hu said:
language_fan írta:
Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:04:09 -0400, Chad J thusly wrote:
I'm reminded of how annoying it is when there are different libraries
for a language
You query presence of a key in an AA using 'in'
if (id in symtab) {
Symbol sym = symtab[id];
...
} else {
..
}
Or this avoids a double lookup if the symbol is present:
Symbol* pSym = id in symtab;
if (pSym !is null) {
Symbol sym = *pSym;
...
} else
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Manfred_Nowak svv1...@hotmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Symbol* pSym = id in symtab;
shouldn't the compiler sort this out?
I'm not really sure what you mean, but I think the answer is that
there's a difference between an unset entry and one that's set
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm working on some mathy modules that I'd like to eventually contribute to
Phobos, or, if they're too niche, to a standalone lib.
One that I've alluded
to here in the past few days is MathExp. Basically what it does is
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm working on some mathy modules that I'd like to eventually contribute
to
Phobos, or, if they're too niche, to a standalone lib.
One
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Bartosz Milewski:
With every release of D we are narrowing our options. After D2 and TDPL,
backward compatibility will become a major thing, so every ad-hoc feature in
D2 will have
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote:
Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Right now we're in trouble with operators: opIndex and opIndexAssign
don't seem to be up to snuff because they don't catch operations like
a[b] += c;
with
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Ary Borenszweig a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote:
Kagamin wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
Java's syntax has the advantage of having to type less when the
annotation has no arguments: @annotation vs. [annotation].
In both
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Jason House
jason.james.ho...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Right now we're in trouble with operators: opIndex and opIndexAssign
don't seem to be up to snuff because they don't catch operations like
a[b] += c;
with reasonable expressiveness
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Jason House
jason.james.ho...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Right now we're in trouble with operators: opIndex and opIndexAssign
don't seem to be up to snuff because
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:16:01 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Right now we're in trouble with operators: opIndex and opIndexAssign don't
seem to be up to snuff because they don't
;
does (opIndexAssign).
I think the optimization translates to opAssign as well:
a[b] = c; = a.opAssign(b, c);
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:37:50 -0400, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
Huh? It didn't sound to me like it would get rid of anything, except
for the use of the word index in many
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Huh? It didn't sound to me like it would get rid of anything, except
for the use of the word index in many methods that have to do with
index operations. That just seems confusing
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM, JC jcrapuchet...@gmail.com wrote:
This idea along with a slice overload would save me a lot of pain and
performance while working with matrices in my production code. Any ideas
when this could be implemented in D1?
Jonathan
It won't be implemented in D1.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Well timed. I just wrote this operator overloading proposal, part 1.
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP7
I concentrated on getting the use cases established.
The indexing thing was something I didn't have
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Chad J
chadj...@__spam.is.bad__gmail.com wrote:
Forgotten already?
Apparently, yes!
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Property#Semantic
This is the same problem as property lvalue-ness and it has the same
solution. When property rewriting is
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:31:32 -0400, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
It seems that D's operator overloading is a bit silly in some cases
w.r.t.
opAddAssign, opSubAssign, etc. Consider the following example:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Phil Deets pjdee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:47:34 -0500, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
(OTOH I wonder how much extant C++ code uses the comma operator. I bet
there's not much of it. (But more than code than uses octal!)).
There are quite a few
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Specifying an intermediate json/xml file format is a huge task considering
the amount of language constructs, types etc. available in D.
It isn't. It's far less work than ddoc is, for example.
I'm all for good
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote:
Ary Borenszweig a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote in message
news:havvl7$1tl...@digitalmars.com...
Yeah, we made a game in WPF in the company I work for, using bindings
(*the* feature of WPF): it was sluggish. From the start I
301 - 400 of 907 matches
Mail list logo
