Shared objects?

Hi group, I've been reading up on D for the past few days--something I'd been planning to do for quite a while--and find much to like and little to dislike; as such, I am considering using it for my next project, which would run on Linux (and possibly some other POSIX systems) and would need to lo

Re: Shared objects?

Jacob Carlborg writes: > On 2012-06-18 16:56, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> However, what >> I don't find is the answer to the two following questions: >> >> - Does D support dlopen(), or some similar mechanism, to allow me to >>load plugins at runtime

Re: D2 Library Porters

Iain Buclaw writes: > On 3 July 2012 13:29, Iain Buclaw wrote: > Also, I say you should drop Ubuntu in favour of Debian. :o) ACK ;-) -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a

Re: Proposal: takeFront and takeBack

Jonathan M Davis writes: > This seems like it probably merits a bit of discussion, so I'm bringing it up > here rather than simply opening a pull request. > > At present, for some ranges (variably-lengthed ranges such as strings in > particular), calling front incurs a cost which popFront at le

Re: lldb support for D programming language

"timotheecour" writes: > Is anybody planning to support the D programming language in lldb? > > Currently gdb on osx doesn't support D (name mangling issues on osx > even though it works on linux), and anyways lldb offers much more than > gdb with interactive debugging via python scripting among

Re: D versionning

"Roman D. Boiko" writes: > On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 06:52:25 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote: >> I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much >> community disagreement with this... > > I would not be against having development and stable versions, but the > price is not trivial: every p

Re: D versionning

"Chris NS" writes: > +1 for a "2.breaking.bugfix" scheme. I've used this scheme on > anything serious for years, and know many others who have; so it is > not only popular but also quite tried and proven. Not for every > project, of course (although I don't understand why the Linux kernel > tea

Re: Re-thinking D's modules

Russel Winder writes: >> > I do not like few things about Jigsaw, but most of the things they >> > plan there simply make sense, especially the versioning and >> > module-restrictions, which I urge D developers to take a look and >> > come up with something similar for D2 or D3... This is extreme

Re: Re-thinking D's modules

"Kagamin" writes: > On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 09:25:03 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: >>> For those that don't know .NET, due to the DLL Hell experience, >>> Microsoft >>> has built version support in the CLR from day 1. >> >> But, as ever, Microsoft see things like this as a way to try and get >>

Re: Re-thinking D's modules

Russel Winder writes: > On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 02:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > [...] >> I don't know about cmake; and scons and waf are both crap, so it's not >> surprising they've not even heard of symbol versioning. > > I disagree, I think SCon

Re: Time for std.reflection

"Kagamin" writes: > On Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 14:28:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> Yah, ideally all entities definable in a D module should be >> available via reflection. But I focused on things that e.g. the user >> of a dynamically-loaded library would be interested in: functions, >> c