On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 13:04:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I've never understood why my
employer's IT department insists on blocking _outgoing_ ports.
Blocking outgoing SMPT is a good and easy practice to block spam.
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 20:24:39 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 13:04:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I've never understood why my
employer's IT department insists on blocking _outgoing_ ports.
Blocking outgoing
Of course sending spam is worse than receiving. You can try
secure SMTP, if your server supports it. AFAIK, it was a solution
to spam problem, so it shouldn't be blocked.
Or better - some mail servers provide additional smtp port, which
handles only authenticated client-server smtp, it shouldn't be
blocked either (spamers use unauthenticated server-server smtp).
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 21:07:49 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Of course sending spam is worse than receiving.
If you say so. I don't know why you'd really care beyond the fact that it's
rude. Concern about getting blocked by other SMTP servers?
You can try
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 00:34:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
And like with them, it's impossible to use ref for this,
because you can't use
ref with variadic template arguments.
Wait what?
void foo(T...)(ref T args)
{
args[0] = 42;
}
void main()
{
int x;
It happens regularly with posts going through mailman.
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 08:58:44 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
It happens regularly with posts going through mailman.
It happens sometimes. Jonathan's post have been doing it *every
time* in the last couple of days...
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:14:13 +
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 00:34:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
And like with them, it's impossible to use ref for this,
because you can't use
ref with variadic template
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:21:56 +
monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 08:58:44 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
It happens regularly with posts going through mailman.
It happens sometimes. Jonathan's post have been doing it *every
time* in the
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 09:35:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:14:13 +
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 00:34:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
And like with them, it's
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 10:35:58 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 09:35:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:14:13 +
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 00:34:19 UTC, Jonathan M
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:42:29 -0400, Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net wrote:
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 22:06:02 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 08:49:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d
long days;
int seconds;
short msecs;
d.split!(days, seconds,
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 09:47:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I may have to stop posting from work for the time being. :|
I understand it may not be ideal from the perspective of your
usual NG workflow, but maybe the forum interface could offer some
relief?
-Wyatt
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 21:00:39 +0200, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
It's a common idiom in core.time and std.datetime to use strings to
represent units when you need to give the units as template arguments.
If it hade't been strings, it would have been an enum (otherwise, they
would
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 12:49:42 +
Wyatt via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 09:47:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I may have to stop posting from work for the time being. :|
I understand it may not be ideal from the
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 13:04:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It took us ages to get them to even open the outbound ssh port.
Oh? This is promising. Sounds like it's time to set up a
reverse SSH tunnel!
...Not that I have all sort of experience with these because of
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:12:06 +0200
Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Just a minor note: What about just .only!minutes, analogous
.total!minutes? Removing both the .minutes shortcut and the short
get method, pretty heavily increases verbosity, so shortening
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:23:47AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:12:06 +0200
Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Just a minor note: What about just .only!minutes, analogous
.total!minutes? Removing both the .minutes
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 07:18:59 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:23:47AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
{
auto d = dur!days(12) + dur!minutes(7) + dur!usecs(501223);
long days;
int seconds;
short msecs;
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 15:51:58 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 14:16:31 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 11:28:52 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Does one really needs only one component, but not the others?
Maybe it should provide full computed broken form instead
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:35:16 + (UTC)
Byron Heads via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 07:18:59 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:23:47AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
{
auto d =
On 06/05/14 16:18, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:23:47AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Actually, after some further discussion, I think that we've decided to
remove get/getOnly entirely. Instead, we'll have a function called
split which
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 08:49:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d
long days;
int seconds;
short msecs;
d.split!(days, seconds, msecs)(days, seconds,
msecs);
Please don't use pass-by-pointer in D APIs. It makes it a real
*nightmare* to ever use the code in a safe
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:06:01 -0400, monarch_dodra monarchdo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 08:49:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d
long days;
int seconds;
short msecs;
d.split!(days, seconds, msecs)(days, seconds, msecs);
Please don't use
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 17:54:49 -0400, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 06/05/14 16:18, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:23:47AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Actually, after some further discussion, I think
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 22:06:02 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 08:49:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d
long days;
int seconds;
short msecs;
d.split!(days, seconds, msecs)(days, seconds,
msecs);
Please don't use pass-by-pointer in D APIs. It
On 06/06/14 00:15, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 17:54:49 -0400, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I'd say it is very C-ish and very unidiomatic.
Why? Well, compare with:
struct D {
// In real code these methods
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:54:49 +0200
Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I'm just saying that encouraging that kind of
return-by-weakly-typed-pointers-with-string-selectors interfaces
is /not/ a good idea; there are other, much better, options in D.
There's no
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:18:33 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:06:01 -0400, monarch_dodra
monarchdo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 08:49:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d
long days;
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:15:11 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
Respectfully disagree, the API looks very good to me. And decidedly
not C-like.
It's not even _possible_ to write a function like this in C or in C++98
(though - though maybe C++11/14
On 06/06/14 02:34, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:18:33 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:06:01 -0400, monarch_dodra
monarchdo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 08:49:18
On 06/06/14 02:34, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:54:49 +0200
Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I'm just saying that encouraging that kind of
return-by-weakly-typed-pointers-with-string-selectors interfaces
is /not/ a good
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:30:19 +0200
Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 06/06/14 02:34, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
And you get an API which looks like this:
auto r = d.split!q{ days, seconds, msecs };
// access r.days etc
You can already
Jonathan, every one of your postings starts a new thread rather than staying in
the one you reply to.
Just a minor note: What about just .only!minutes, analogous
.total!minutes? Removing both the .minutes shortcut and the short
get method, pretty heavily increases verbosity, so shortening
getOnly might be a good idea.
On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 at 17:35:42 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
This all sounds like implementation detail rather than API
usage.
How can an API problem be an implementation detail? I'm not quite
getting your point here.
David
On 6/4/14, 9:12 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Just a minor note: What about just .only!minutes, analogous
..total!minutes?
Like -- Andrei
On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 at 17:01:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
As of Sunday. The problem is that they seem to be very prone
for misuse.
Not only do they not match what TickDuration uses those same
names for (it
uses them for the equivelent of total!hours(), etc. rather
than
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 11:28:52 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Does one really needs only one component, but not the others?
Maybe it should provide full computed broken form instead of
separate components?
auto d=dur.breakUp;
d.hours; d.minutes; d.seconds;
In some glorious future where we can
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 14:16:31 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 11:28:52 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Does one really needs only one component, but not the others?
Maybe it should provide full computed broken form instead of
separate components?
auto d=dur.breakUp;
d.hours;
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 15:51:58 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
Assuming hours, minutes and seconds are already declared, you
can do this already
TypeTuple!(hours, minutes, seconds) = dur.parts;
A full working example of the syntax:
import std.typetuple;
import std.typecons;
import std.stdio;
On 6/4/2014 3:12 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Just a minor note: What about just .only!minutes, analogous
.total!minutes? Removing both the .minutes shortcut and the short
get method, pretty heavily increases verbosity, so shortening
getOnly might be a good idea.
+1 for only
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 17:06:22 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 15:51:58 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
Assuming hours, minutes and seconds are already declared, you
can do this already
TypeTuple!(hours, minutes, seconds) = dur.parts;
A full working example of the syntax:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12846
Since when is x.hours, x.minutes, etc., deprecated? Well, in any case,
looks like std.datetime needs to be fixed.
--T
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:21:12 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12846
Since when is x.hours, x.minutes, etc., deprecated?
As of Sunday. The problem is that they seem to be very prone for misuse.
Not only do they not
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 10:00 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:21:12 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12846
Since when is x.hours, x.minutes, etc., deprecated?
As of
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:35:31 +0100
Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 10:00 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:21:12 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
48 matches
Mail list logo
