Jeremie Pelletier Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent Wrote:
>
> > OK, to make matters worse.
> >
> > As I was reading so many things about properties, keywords and a bunch of
> > other interesting things, perhaps triggers.
> >
> > Triggers are, in my opinion
OK, to make matters worse.
As I was reading so many things about properties, keywords and a bunch of other
interesting things, perhaps triggers.
Triggers are, in my opinion, functions that act as delegates, and are called
before or after one or more other functions. Maybe we can do something wi
Michel Fortin Wrote:
> >> As you know, I tried to write some guidelines[1] for naming things in D.
> >> Those guidelines looks well at first glance, but then you look at Phobos
> >> and you see that half of it use some arbitrary naming rules. Take
> >> "writefln" for instance: following my guideli
John C Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >
> >> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >>> "Walter Bright" wrote in message
> >>> news:h53g3i$el...@digitalmars.com...
> >>>> bool empty { ... }
>
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > "Walter Bright" wrote in message
> > news:h53g3i$el...@digitalmars.com...
> >> bool empty { ... }
> >> void empty=(bool b) { ... }
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > I think that if D starts to make a habit of aping the ugly C++ appr
Sergey Gromov Wrote:
> Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:04:51 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> > It's been established in the recent epic-discussions on properties that one
> > of the biggest uses for properties is to implement publically read-only
> > (but
> > privately-writable) fields. That got me think
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Sjoerd van Leent wrote:
> > It appears that there are really different discussions about properties.
> > There is a discussion about letting properties look and act as much as
> > fields, and there is a dis
Rainer Deyke Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent wrote:
> > I understand your idea, but it is contrary to the common
> > understanding that a property is a replacement of a field. As thus,
> > from the users perspective, a property should look and act the same
> > as a field.
It appears that there are really different discussions about properties. There
is a discussion about letting properties look and act as much as fields, and
there is a discussion about calling member methods on returning structs.
I'd like to seperate these discussions. First, I don't think it is
Dimitar Kolev Wrote:
> Just make all properties accessed by # and you will save yourself the
> ambiguities of calling a function or a property with the same names.
I understand your idea, but it is contrary to the common understanding that a
property is a replacement of a field. As thus, from t
Robert Fraser Wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> > 2. modifiers that don't make sense should be disallowed.
>
> There's been wars about this one. IMO, this is a good thing for writing
> templated/generic code -- if a modifier only makes sense in one instance
> of a template, all the others shoul
grauzone Wrote:
> The problem is, that you have to litter your code with calls like above.
Exactly. Even though it can just be brought down to one additional statement
per class, the statement in itself doesn't create any functionality, at least,
from programmers perspective.
This could obvio
Robert Clipsham Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent wrote:
> > As D is typically a system language, this enhancement might not make it,
> > but I still think it would be practical.
> >
> > I've been thinking of a real world example for this, and yesterday found a
Bartosz Milewski Wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
> > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8z3wm/whats_wrong_with_the_thread_object/
>
> The bottom line of this post is that the current Thread object in D should be
> abandoned and replaced by a more primitive "spawn" function. If there a
Daniel Keep Wrote:
>
> D2 has a getMembers method in TypeInfo and ClassInfo that would probably
> do the job. Only problem is that the compiler doesn't actually generate
> the function for it.
>
> I asked about it a while ago, but never got a response.
I've noticed this message a while ago. I
As D is typically a system language, this enhancement might not make it, but I
still think it would be practical.
I've been thinking of a real world example for this, and yesterday found a nice
example to illustrate.
Suppose you would be creating an API to interrogate a database. Now within the
David B. Held Wrote:
> I would be very surprised to hear about a large-scale
> project in Python/Ruby/etc. (100k+ lines).
>
> Dave
I've got a system here that is made in a dynamic language, and extends well
over 100k+ lines. Developed by more than 25 developers. That shows that dynamic
languag
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> "Sjoerd van Leent" wrote in message
> news:h2fs94$1q3...@digitalmars.com...
> >
> >
> > However, Tango and Phobos (D1) are simply incompatible. It's rather
> > impossible to link both of them together.
> >
> &g
Jason House Wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
> > If there's more I can do to make this work, I would like to know what
> > that is.
>
> I know D does not burden itself with backwards compatibility, but the lack of
> compatibility has to affect many D projects. There are many D1-only projects
>
Kagamin Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent Wrote:
>
> > All of these environments have a stable language, and on top of that, ONE
> > single main library. With C++ this is STL/IOStream, with .NET and Java it's
> > their respective libraries. Similar for Python and Ruby. W
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent wrote:
> > Hi Ary,
> >
> > I think this is the issue. I'm not saying that D in itself is lacking
> > anything. I think it is important to put an end to changing D (D2).
>
> Although this has not been officia
uch purpose in doing this. Since it is not
realistic, and I can put effort in things that are more worthwhile.
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent escribió:
> > Lately, I've been tuning in to the development of D again. But what I see
> > is rather disturbing.
&
Lately, I've been tuning in to the development of D again. But what I see is
rather disturbing.
There is a new continuation of the old D, in the newer D2. Personally, I think
this is good, as long as there will be a defined end to D2. What disturbs me
more, is that there appears to be no cohere
zsxxsz Wrote:
> == Quote from Robert Fraser (fraseroftheni...@gmail.com)'s article
> > Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> > > zsxxsz escribió:
> > >> == Quote from Jarrett Billingsley (jarrett.billings...@gmail.com)'s
> > >> article
> > >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:46 PM, zsxxsz wrote:
> > It's good.
bearophile Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent:
> >I've been looking into D,<
>
> I suggest D1 running on LDC with Tango.
>
>
> >but since D doesn't allow me to dynamically change behavior, it most likely
> >requires a VM.<
>
> With D you can use
Kagamin Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent Wrote:
>
> > Any ideas...
>
> I would start with search for bottleneck that takes 10 minutes to start.
> I don't know what .net/ruby/vm can give you beyond any plugin system.
> Integrated compiler is a technique to make
Currently, there are two major commercial vendors of GIS Software (GE and
ESRI). GIS applications are big. They have a startup time of about 10 to 20
minutes. So GIS programmers prefer to be able to change code dynamically, not
having to restart every time.
To do this, both of them use a virtua
27 matches
Mail list logo
