On 28.9.2014. 21:32, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/28/2014 11:25 AM, bearophile wrote:
Exceptions are often used to help debugging...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBhlQgvHmQ0
Example exception messages:
Unable to connect to database
Invalid argument count
Invalid network package format
All
On 28.9.2014. 1:15, Walter Bright wrote:
This issue comes up over and over, in various guises. I feel like
Yosemite Sam here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBhlQgvHmQ0
In that vein, Exceptions are for either being able to recover from
input/environmental errors, or report them to the use
On 21.9.2014. 22:57, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Sunday, 21 September 2014 at 19:36:01 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Friday, 19 September 2014 at 15:32:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please chime in with thoughts.
Why don't we all focus our efforts on upgrading the current GC to a
state-of-the GC
On 15.5.2014. 17:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 3:31 AM, luka8088 wrote:
>> Yeah, I read all about weak/string purity and I do understand the
>> background. I was talking about strong purity, maybe I should pointed
>> that out.
>>
>> So, to correct myself: As I understood strong purit
On 15.5.2014. 13:04, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:48:07 +
> Don via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> Yes. 'strong pure' means pure in the way that the functional
>> language crowd means 'pure'.
>> 'weak pure' just means doesn't use globals.
>>
>> But note that "
On 15.5.2014. 12:48, Don wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 10:31:47 UTC, luka8088 wrote:
>> On 15.5.2014. 11:45, Don wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 08:14:50 UTC, luka8088 wrote:
On 15.5.2014. 8:58, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 05:51:14 +
>>
On 15.5.2014. 11:45, Don wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 08:14:50 UTC, luka8088 wrote:
>> On 15.5.2014. 8:58, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 05:51:14 +
>>> via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
Yep, purity implies memoing.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. _All_ that
On 15.5.2014. 11:35, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:14:48 +0200
> luka8088 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> On 15.5.2014. 8:58, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 05:51:14 +
>>> via Digitalma
On 15.5.2014. 8:58, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 05:51:14 +
> via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> Yep, purity implies memoing.
>
> No, it doesn't. _All_ that it means when a function is pure is that it cannot
> access global or static variables unless they can't
On 13.5.2014. 19:40, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 01:29:32PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
> Even in this case, I'd put an in-contract on f2 that verifies that the
> range is indeed non-empty:
>
> ...
> void f2(
On 6.5.2014. 20:10, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/6/2014 10:47 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 7 May 2014 01:46, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
>> I'm not even sure what the process it... if I go through and "LGTM" a
>> bunch of pulls, does someone accept my judgement and click the mer
On 8.5.2014. 5:58, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> This magic of T[] is something that custom ranges can't avail themselves
> of. In order to bring about parity, we'd need to introduce opByValue
> which (if present) would be automatically called whenever the object is
> passed by value into a funct
12 matches
Mail list logo
