Hi all,
Long time since I read/posted here but I saw this and thought it
might be good PR for D:
http://adventofcode.com/
Should also be fun.
Ciao,
Regan
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:09:12 -, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 10 November 2014 at 10:21:34 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:30:25 -, Dejan Lekic
wrote:
In D apps I work on I prefer all my classes in a single module, as is
common "D way", or shall I call it "modular way"
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:30:25 -, Dejan Lekic
wrote:
In D apps I work on I prefer all my classes in a single module, as is
common "D way", or shall I call it "modular way"?
Sure, but that's not the point of partial. It's almost never used by the
programmer directly, and when it is used
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:54:39 -, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 at 07:41:41 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
Hello,everyone,
I've written some projects in C#,find the 'partial' keyword is very
userful,which lets the auto codes in another single file,my codes are
very easy to
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:06:31 +0100, eles wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 14:42:30 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:50:44 +0100, Martin Nowak wrote:
Would this affect your code?
Probably, but I have no D code of any size to care about.
Would this change make you to w
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:50:44 +0100, Martin Nowak wrote:
Would this affect your code?
Probably, but I have no D code of any size to care about.
Do you think it makes your code better or worse?
Better.
Is this just a pointless style change?
Nope.
Anything else?
Only what you said in
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:47:55 +0100, Martin Nowak
wrote:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4043#issuecomment-58748353
There has been a broad support for this on the newsgroup discussion
because this regularly confuses beginners.
There are also some arguments against it (par
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:39:06 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/7/14, 12:36 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
Hum... But arguably, that's just exception chaining "happening". Do you
have any examples of someone actually "dealing" with all the exceptions
in a chain in a catch, or actually using t
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:48:31 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 06/10/14 15:45, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Knowledge doesn't have to be by type; just place data inside the
exception. About the only place where multiple "catch" statements are
used to make fine distinctions between exception types
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:38:33 +0100, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/25/2014 4:10 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
Sure, Andrei makes a valid point .. for a minority of cases. The
majority case
will be that opEquals and opCmp==0 will agree. In those minority cases
where
they are intended to disagree the
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 05:22:26 +0100, Walter Bright
wrote:
If you don't want to accept that equality and comparison are
fundamentally different operations, I can only repeat saying the same
things.
For the majority of use cases they are *not* in fact fundamentally
different.
You're corre
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:39:11 +0100, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/25/2014 1:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
3. If opCmp is defined but no opEquals, lhs == rhs will be lowered to
lhs.opCmp(rhs) == 0
This is the sticking point. opCmp and opEquals are separate on purpose,
see Andrei's posts.
Sur
Windows 7 x64
On Wed, 07 May 2014 19:41:16 +0100, Maxime Chevalier-Boisvert
wrote:
Unless I'm misunderstanding it should be as simple as:
wchar[100] stackws; // alloca() if you need it to be dynamically sized.
A slice of this static array behaves just like a slice of a dynamic
array.
I do need it to
On Fri, 02 May 2014 01:22:12 +0100, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 10:03:21 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:56:15 +0100, Timon Gehr
wrote:
If this is a problem, I guess the most obvious alternatives are to:
1. Get rid of namespace scopes. Require workarounds in
On Thu, 01 May 2014 11:03:21 +0100, Regan Heath
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:56:15 +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
If this is a problem, I guess the most obvious alternatives are to:
1. Get rid of namespace scopes. Require workarounds in the case of
conflicting definitions in different namespa
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:56:15 +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
If this is a problem, I guess the most obvious alternatives are to:
1. Get rid of namespace scopes. Require workarounds in the case of
conflicting definitions in different namespaces in the same file. (Eg.
use a mixin template.) I'd pres
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:20:22 +0100, Regan Heath
wrote:
Something else to think about.
C# has the same problem and has solved it the following way..
[main.cs]
using ..
using CSTest_Test1;
using CSTest_Test2;
namespace CSTest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 05:03:58 +0100, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Wrong KISS: compiler internals over specification
Indeed.
I've been a C/C++ developer for ~16 years and I was confused several times
reading this thread.
The mix of D modules and C++ namespaces is the thing what needs to be k
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:32:31 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:29:47 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 4/17/2014 8:51 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Every time I open one of these messages I
get a huge pregnant 5-second pause, along with the Mac Beach Ball
(hourg
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:38:23 +0100, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 4/16/2014 8:01 AM, qznc wrote:
However, what is still an open issue is that @nogc can be stopped by
allocations
in another thread. We need threads which are not affected by
stop-the-world. As
far as I know, creating threads via p
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:08:29 +0100, Orvid King via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
I'm just going to put my 2-cents into this discussion, it's my
personal opinion that while _allocations_ should be removed from
phobos wherever possible, replacing GC usage with manual calls to
malloc/free has no place in
22 matches
Mail list logo
