On 2018-10-22 12:06, Russel Winder wrote:
Jacob,
GitHub is currently making a total mess for me of our conversation on
Issue 42, I see stuff then it goes away. Apologies if I have made a
mess of that conversation for you.
Yeah, I noticed that. GitHub had/still having some major issues [1].
S
On 2018-10-21 22:31, Patrick Schluter wrote:
I like it and I'm looking forward that it gets beyond swt 3.4.
I ported my Java GUI SWT program to D and it was a breeze to do. I
didn't even require to change the structure of the app and the class
hierarchy. There was only the file and string hand
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 16:23 +, Gregor Mückl via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> It's easy to go and proclaim a strategic goal such as this. What
> actually matters is execution. And that requires some serious
> developer time that someone (ideally a whole team) needs to
>
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:00 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 12:26, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > ---
> > module borked;
> >
> > void atomicIncrement(int* p)@system{
> > import core.atomic;
> > atomicOp!("+=",int,int)(*c
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:50 AM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:22:19 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> > No no, they're repeated, not scattered, because I seem to have
> > to keep repeating it over and over, because nobody is readin
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:30 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 02:54, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:40 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.10.18 21:04, Manu wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Oct 2
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 17:15:03 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 08:42 +, Paolo Invernizzi via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
Linux is not only the desktop, and Qt simply dominates in
industrial, medical and automation sector, that's where the
money is.
Qt is pu
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 03:49:44 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> So I'm honestly *shocked* to hear this. I NEVER would've guessed. I'm
> pretty sold on rolling-release at this point, but I'm intrigued enough
> that I'm gonna have to give the latest Ubuntu a try, at least in a VM.
The latest
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 14:31:28 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 22.10.18 16:09, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 13:40:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
module reborked;
import atomic;
void main()@safe{
auto a=new Atomic!int;
import std.concurrency;
spawn((shared(Atomic!i
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 11:24:27 UTC, Dukc wrote:
Frankly, this does not sound credible. According to this
rationale, array access should be @system too, because it
relies on the array not giving direct access to its length to
the user, which would also in itself be @safe.
For reading,
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:22:19 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:35 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> Yes, but the problem you describe is arises from
On 22.10.18 16:09, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 13:40:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
module reborked;
import atomic;
void main()@safe{
auto a=new Atomic!int;
import std.concurrency;
spawn((shared(Atomic!int)* a){ ++*a; }, a);
++a.tupleof[0];
}
Finally! Proof th
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 11:24:27 UTC, Dukc wrote:
Frankly, this does not sound credible. According to this
rationale, array access should be @system too, because it
relies on the array not giving direct access to its length to
the user, which would also in itself be @safe.
Arrays are a
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:22:19 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:35 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Then I don't know what the proposal is. Pieces of it appear to
be scattered over numerous posts, mixed in with other text,
No no, they're repeated, not
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 13:40:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
module reborked;
import atomic;
void main()@safe{
auto a=new Atomic!int;
import std.concurrency;
spawn((shared(Atomic!int)* a){ ++*a; }, a);
++a.tupleof[0];
}
Finally! Proof that MP is impossible. On the other hand,
On 22.10.18 15:26, Simen Kjærås wrote:
Here's the correct version:
module atomic;
void atomicIncrement(int* p) @system {
import core.atomic;
atomicOp!("+=",int,int)(*cast(shared(int)*)p,1);
}
struct Atomic(T) {
// Should probably mark this shared for extra safety,
// but it
On 22.10.18 03:01, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:55 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 22.10.18 02:45, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 21.10.18 20:46, Manu wrote:
Shared data is only useful if, at some point, it is read
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 09:40:42 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:21 AM ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 22.10.18 10:39, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
[...]
> It's invalid only if Atomic.badboy exists.
I don
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 11:06:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 2:30:21 AM MDT Basile B. via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 08:25:17 UTC, Andrea Fontana
wrote:
> Moreover: you're the author of the module so you're supposed
>
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 10:26:14 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
module borked;
void atomicIncrement(int* p)@system{
import core.atomic;
atomicOp!("+=",int,int)(*cast(shared(int)*)p,1);
}
struct Atomic(T){
private T val;
void opUnary(string op : "++")() shared @trusted {
at
On 22.10.18 14:39, Aliak wrote:
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 10:26:14 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
---
module borked;
void atomicIncrement(int* p)@system{
import core.atomic;
atomicOp!("+=",int,int)(*cast(shared(int)*)p,1);
}
struct Atomic(T){
private T val;
void opUnary(string op :
On 22.10.18 12:26, Timon Gehr wrote:
---
module borked;
void atomicIncrement(int* p)@system{
import core.atomic;
atomicOp!("+=",int,int)(*cast(shared(int)*)p,1);
}
struct Atomic(T){
private T val;
void opUnary(string op : "++")() shared @trusted {
atomicIncrement(ca
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 10:26:14 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
---
module borked;
void atomicIncrement(int* p)@system{
import core.atomic;
atomicOp!("+=",int,int)(*cast(shared(int)*)p,1);
}
struct Atomic(T){
private T val;
void opUnary(string op : "++")() shared @trusted {
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:22:19 UTC, Manu wrote:
No no, they're repeated, not scattered, because I seem to have
to keep repeating it over and over, because nobody is reading
the text, or perhaps imaging there is a lot more text than
there is.
...
You mean like every post in opposition
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
The @trusted contract says that an @trusted function must be
safe when called from an @safe function. That calling @safe
function might be located in the same module, meaning it might
have the same level of access as the @trusted funct
On Monday, October 22, 2018 2:30:21 AM MDT Basile B. via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 08:25:17 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
> > Moreover: you're the author of the module so you're supposed to
> > know how it works and which members you shoul
On 22.10.18 11:40, Manu wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:21 AM ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
I don't agree. I prefer the stronger @trusted. As far as I know, the
stronger one is the current one.
The current one has the critical weakness that it causes **EVERY
USER** to
On 22.10.18 11:33, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 3:05 PM ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
It's @trusted, not @safe... so I don't think you can say "It's invalid
because we can even possibly write an Atomic.badboy" (I would agree to
that statement if i
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
It took me a while to understand Manu's idea for `shared`, and
I suspect that it was/is the same for others...
Three threads one...
Three threads two...
Three threads three! Sold! Thank you very much, ladies and
gentlemen!
On 22.10.18 02:54, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:40 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 21.10.18 21:04, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 21.10.18 17:54, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
As soon as that is done, you've got a
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 03:49 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> […]
> Just to see what's up with this "Qt-based Ubuntu", which to me, is
> much
> like hearing of Mario on a Dreamcast, or Sonic on SNES...
Canonical got heavily into Qt (well Q
Jacob,
GitHub is currently making a total mess for me of our conversation on
Issue 42, I see stuff then it goes away. Apologies if I have made a
mess of that conversation for you.
On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> There's probab
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:30 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/22/2018 1:34 AM, Manu wrote:
> > I posted it, twice... 2 messages, back to back, and you're responding
> > to this one, and not that one. I'll post it again...
>
>
> Posting it
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:21 AM ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 10:39, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> [...]
> > It's invalid only if Atomic.badboy exists.
>
> I don't agree. I prefer th
On 22/10/2018 10:28 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/22/2018 1:34 AM, Manu wrote:
I posted it, twice... 2 messages, back to back, and you're responding
to this one, and not that one. I'll post it again...
Posting it over and over is illustrative of the failure of posting
proposal documents to
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
With Manu's `shared`, there is implicit conversion from
non-`shared` to `shared`. It would essentially become a
language rule. For that rule to be sound, any access to
`shared` data must be @system. And more challengingly,
@system/@tr
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 3:05 PM ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> It took me a while to understand Manu's idea for `shared`, and I suspect
> that it was/is the same for others. At the same time, Manu seems
> bewildered about the objections. I'm going to try and sum
On 10/22/2018 1:34 AM, Manu wrote:
I posted it, twice... 2 messages, back to back, and you're responding
to this one, and not that one. I'll post it again...
Posting it over and over is illustrative of the failure of posting proposal
documents to the n.g. instead of posting it as a DIP which
On 22.10.18 10:39, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
[...]
It's invalid only if Atomic.badboy exists.
I don't agree. I prefer the stronger @trusted. As far as I know, the
stronger one is the current one.
Essentially, since the module is the uni
On 10/22/2018 1:42 AM, Manu wrote:
You removed whatever comment you're referring to.
If your newsreader cannot find the antecedent, you badly need to use a better
one. Thunderbird handles this rather well, there's no reason to use an inferior one.
Or just click the <- button:
https://digita
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:55 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2018 11:58 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Thank you, Timon, for a nice explanation of what I was trying to express.
You removed whatever comment you're referring to.
I don't und
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
(2) What's Wrong with That?
The @trusted contract says that an @trusted function must be
safe when called from an @safe function. That calling @safe
function might be located in the same module, meaning it might
have the same level o
Third time's the charm maybe?
- repeated, 3rd time
On Sun., 21 Oct. 2018, 2:55 am Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d,
wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2018 11:24 AM, Manu wrote:
> > This is an unfair dismissal.
>
> It has nothing at all
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:50 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2018 5:54 PM, Manu wrote:
> > Would you please respond to my messages, and specifically, respond to
> > the code that I presented to you in response to your broken example.
> > Or any
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 08:25:17 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
Moreover: you're the author of the module so you're supposed to
know how it works and which members you should call or not.
- team
- maintainer of a module written by someone that works elsewhere
now.
that's two cases where st
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 03:17:23 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
So that classes can share some of their variables but not
others in a module.
IE.
class A
{
internal int A; //This is shared in the module
private int B; // But not this.
}
No need to reintroduce the "Friend" feature from cpp.
A
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 23:50:57 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
If the cost out way the benefits then I simply introduce the
"strict" keyword to avoid code breakage, or introduce the
optional module scoping.
-Alex
Looking at the dlang.org page about visibility attributes, the
`package` keywo
On 10/21/2018 11:58 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
[...]
Thank you, Timon, for a nice explanation of what I was trying to express.
On 10/22/18 1:58 AM, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
Unity 7 and prior for the desktop use Nux, an OpenGL-based widget toolkit.
Unity 8 and all mobile versions of Unity use Qt. The application set that
Ubuntu shipped with Unity was, I think, heavier on the GTK+ side.
Fascinating. I'm actually shocked b
On 10/21/2018 5:54 PM, Manu wrote:
Would you please respond to my messages, and specifically, respond to
the code that I presented to you in response to your broken example.
Or any of my earlier fragments throughout this thread. I've shared
quite a few, and so far, nobody has ever produced a crit
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 23:50:57 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 21:48:22 UTC, Laurent Tréguier
wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 17:09:05 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
[...]
It's not "my" solution. It's D's solution. I perfectly
understand why you'd want this and I
On 10/22/18 1:08 AM, Gerald wrote:
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 04:41:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)
wrote:
On 10/21/18 1:13 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
[...]
First of all, minor nitpick: Unless some bombshell news occurred that
I managed to miss, Ubuntu pushes their own Unity, NOT Gnome.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:41:08 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> Ultimately, everything points to the same thing: Those who actually CARE
> about GTK/Gnome/Unity vs Qt/KDE, typically prefer Qt/KDE. The rest are
> just swing votes.
Unity 7 and prior for the desktop use Nux, an OpenGL-based w
On 10/21/18 11:59 PM, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 23:05:06 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with socket.io, and the homepage doesn't
seem to tell me much (it doesn't even say whether it uses TCP or UDP).
But that said, in D, the gold-standard for
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 09:51:28AM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 22:19:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> > Haha, I feel so silly now. NDK r13b does not seem to have the
> > sysroot subdir required by the clang build command, that's why
On 10/21/18 1:29 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
No, D should not forget DWT. It's one of the few (they only?) D GUI
toolkit that has a native look and feel.
Apart from GtkD on GTK+ systems, and dqml, QtE5, qtD, and dqt on Qt,
and wxD on wxWidgets. Qt and wxWidgets pride themselves on being able
to use
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 04:41:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
(Abscissa) wrote:
On 10/21/18 1:13 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
[...]
First of all, minor nitpick: Unless some bombshell news
occurred that I managed to miss, Ubuntu pushes their own Unity,
NOT Gnome. Yes, that's still GTK, but still...
On 10/21/18 1:13 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 04:15 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
That's pure nonsense: It's Linux - unless one option actually goes
away
(KDE is still actively used and developed), then there's no such
thing
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 23:05:06 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm not familiar with socket.io, and the homepage doesn't
> seem to tell me much (it doesn't even say whether it uses TCP or UDP).
> But that said, in D, the gold-standard for pretty much *anything*
> related to netw
On 10/21/18 7:36 AM, Andre Pany wrote:
While talking about bindings, do not forget Delphi. It has still a good
eco system. Combining Delphi's advanced Runtime reflection capabilities
with D's advanced compile reflection capabilities opens this eco system.
I created a proof of concept and the
On 10/21/18 4:58 PM, Fleel wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:41:41 UTC, JN wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:14:46 UTC, Fleel wrote:
Does anyone know of a good D alternative for the socket.IO server
(https://socket.io)? I would like to transition my server from
node.js to D, but I
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 01:08:11 UTC, Manu wrote:
FWIW, I'm disappointed with the quality of my dman shirt; I've
put it
through the wash no more than 3-4 times and the print is
aggressively
deteriorating with each wash.
I don't tend to wear it because it's disintegrating so fast.
I'm ju
On 10/20/18 11:17 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
So that classes can share some of their variables but not others in a
module.
IE.
class A
{
internal int A; //This is shared in the module
private int B; // But not this.
}
No need to reintroduce the "Friend" feature from cpp.
I've always felt the sa
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:22:19 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:35 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> Yes, but the problem you describe is arises from
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 17:35:38 -0700, Manu wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 3:15 PM Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> If we only used your proposal and only used @safe code, we wouldn't
>> have any data races, but that's only because we wouldn't have any
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:55:00 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 22.10.18 02:46, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:38:33 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I just did,
Link please?
https://forum.dlang.org/post/pqii8k$11u3$1...@digitalmars.com
That contains no code.
Not all of
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:04:02 UTC, Fleel wrote:
> > It would be awesome if there were T-Shirts with D-man on them.
> > I would totally buy one, and would help to support the
> > foundatio
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:55 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 02:45, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.10.18 20:46, Manu wrote:
> >>>> Shared data i
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:40 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 21.10.18 21:04, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.10.18 17:54, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> >>>
> &
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:46:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That's what I was referring to, and Manu's example. It doesn't
work, as I pointed out.
I'm pretty sure it does, but please repeat it.
We will eventually. This started as a "please point out any
problems with this" and has probab
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:50 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2018 4:12 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 21:32:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>> On 10/21/201
On 22.10.18 02:46, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:38:33 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I just did,
Link please?
https://forum.dlang.org/post/pqii8k$11u3$1...@digitalmars.com
On 22.10.18 02:45, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 21.10.18 20:46, Manu wrote:
Shared data is only useful if, at some point, it is read/written, presumably by
casting it to unshared in @trusted code. As soon as that is done, you've
On 10/21/2018 4:12 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 21:32:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Yes, but the problem you describe is arises from implicit conversion in the
other direction,
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:38:33 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I just did,
Link please?
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 21.10.18 20:46, Manu wrote:
> >> Shared data is only useful if, at some point, it is read/written,
> >> presumably by
> >> casting it to unshared in @trusted code. As soon as that is d
On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:32:35 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
This only works if untrusted programmers (i.e. programmers who
are only allowed to write/modify @safe code) are not allowed to
change your class. I.e. it does not work.
This is the basis of the current @safe/@trusted/@system model.
On 21.10.18 21:04, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 21.10.18 17:54, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
As soon as that is done, you've got a data race with the other
existing unshared aliases.
You're in @trusted code, that is the whole
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 3:15 PM Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:04:16 -0700, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >> Note that there may well be a good way to get the good pr
On 21.10.18 20:46, Manu wrote:
Shared data is only useful if, at some point, it is read/written, presumably by
casting it to unshared in @trusted code. As soon as that is done, you've got a
data race with the other existing unshared aliases.
If such a race is possible, then the @trusted function
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:04:02 UTC, Fleel wrote:
It would be awesome if there were T-Shirts with D-man on them.
I would totally buy one, and would help to support the
foundation too...
We've got a store coming, with t-shirts and other items. D-man
shirts will not be there, though. Tha
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:35 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> >> Yes, but the problem you describe is arises from implicit conversion in the
> >> other direc
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 21:48:22 UTC, Laurent Tréguier
wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 17:09:05 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
[...]
It's not "my" solution. It's D's solution. I perfectly
understand why you'd want this and I would probably make use of
a private/internal difference myself
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 19:53:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 9:17:23 PM MDT 12345swordy via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
So that classes can share some of their variables but not
others in a module.
IE.
class A
{
internal int A; //This is shared in the module
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM Manu wrote:
>
> On Sun., 21 Oct. 2018, 2:55 am Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d,
> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/20/2018 11:24 AM, Manu wrote:
> > > This is an unfair dismissal.
> >
> > It has nothing at all to do with
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:12:18 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:04:16 -0700, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Note that there may well be a good way to get the good
properties of MP without breaking the type system, but
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 21:32:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Yes, but the problem you describe is arises from implicit
conversion in the other direction, which is not part of the
proposal.
It's Man
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:04:16 -0700, Manu wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> Note that there may well be a good way to get the good properties of MP
>> without breaking the type system, but MP itself is not good because it
>>
It took me a while to understand Manu's idea for `shared`, and I suspect
that it was/is the same for others. At the same time, Manu seems
bewildered about the objections. I'm going to try and summarize the
situation. Maybe it can help advance the discussion.
(1) How Does Manu's `shared` Inter
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 17:48:08 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 08:40:36 +, Laurent Tréguier wrote:
This is by design; the D way of dealing with this would be to
split the module into a package with multiple modules.
This is often a usable way of doing things, but som
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 17:09:05 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
I know what the current design is!! You have zero tools in
regarding to allowing class to share certain variables but not
others in the same module! Create a module for every class is
taking all or nothing approach, when there is a
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 20:58:23 +, Fleel wrote:
> Can std.socket provide a realtime connection between the client(web
> browser) and the server, like for a chatroom or realtime multiplayer
> game?
Yes, but it will be a bit of work -- you'd need to implement a webserver
by hand that can upgrade a
On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Yes, but the problem you describe is arises from implicit conversion in the
other direction, which is not part of the proposal.
It's Manu's example.
Then I don't know what the proposal is. Pieces of it
On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Yes, but the problem you describe is arises from implicit conversion in the
other direction, which is not part of the proposal.
It's Manu's example.
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 19:22:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:50 AM Stanislav Blinov via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Because the whole reason to have `shared` is to avoid the
extraneous checks that you mentioned above,
No, it is to assure that you write correct not-broken code
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:41:41 UTC, JN wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:14:46 UTC, Fleel wrote:
Does anyone know of a good D alternative for the socket.IO
server (https://socket.io)? I would like to transition my
server from node.js to D, but I can't find any D equivalents
to so
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:04:02 UTC, Fleel wrote:
It would be awesome if there were T-Shirts with D-man on them.
I would totally buy one, and would help to support the
foundation too...
well that cost 100$+
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:35:20 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Sun., 21 Oct. 2018, 1:05 pm Fleel via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
It would be awesome if there were T-Shirts with D-man on them.
I would totally buy one, and would help to support the
foundati
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:14:46 UTC, Fleel wrote:
Does anyone know of a good D alternative for the socket.IO
server (https://socket.io)? I would like to transition my
server from node.js to D, but I can't find any D equivalents to
socket.IO. (I've seen http://socket.io.dub.pm, but it is
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 18:24:30 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2018-10-21 19:29, Russel Winder wrote:
But who apart from Eclipse and JetBrains uses Java for desktop
GUI
applications?
There's probably a ton of business/enterprise applications that
are written in Java.
But I don't car
1 - 100 of 90926 matches
Mail list logo
