On 06/10/2010 22:47, Juanjo Alvarez wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:55:40 +0100, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail wrote:
Reading newsgroups on phone would suck. I already get a bit
uncomfortable reading them on my laptop (without a peripheral
monitor or
mouse).
Not worse than
Bruno Medeiros Wrote:
On 06/10/2010 22:47, Juanjo Alvarez wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:55:40 +0100, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail wrote:
Reading newsgroups on phone would suck. I already get a bit
uncomfortable reading them on my laptop (without a peripheral
monitor or
On 05/10/2010 16:58, Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:30:59 +0400, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail wrote:
On 27/08/2010 03:01, Gareth Charnock wrote:
On 26/08/10 07:57, Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
This is why I don't like a lot the current
On 05/10/2010 20:53, Juanjo Alvarez wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:30:59 +0100, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail wrote:
I don't know about the rest of people here in the NG, but actually
I
would hope bearophile would post much less often, especially when
its
I like to read his
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:55:40 +0100, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail wrote:
Reading newsgroups on phone would suck. I already get a bit
uncomfortable reading them on my laptop (without a peripheral
monitor or
mouse).
Not worse than reading email on a phone,trough the experience
On 26/08/2010 02:25, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis
If D2's user base really increases like we'd like it to (and TDPL should help a
lot with
that), it's going to cost users a lot more when backwards compatability is
broken.
This is why I don't like a lot the current work done for the 64
On 27/08/2010 03:01, Gareth Charnock wrote:
On 26/08/10 07:57, Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
This is why I don't like a lot the current work done for the 64 bit
implementation.
A lot of groups cannot consider D unless it supports 64 bit compilation.
D2 has some design
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:30:59 +0400, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail wrote:
On 27/08/2010 03:01, Gareth Charnock wrote:
On 26/08/10 07:57, Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
This is why I don't like a lot the current work done for the 64 bit
implementation.
A
Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail wrote:
I don't know about the rest of people here in the NG, but actually I
would hope bearophile would post much less often, especially when its
him creating a new thread. And that's simply because he posts way too
often, with lots of detail,
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:30:59 +0100, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail wrote:
I don't know about the rest of people here in the NG, but actually
I
would hope bearophile would post much less often, especially when
its
I like to read his posts. If you used a NNTP reader on a
Wouldn't it be better if we had some kind of compile-time block
statement instead of making separate compile-time keywords for every
run-time keyword?
For example, we could reuse static, and instead of code like this from
std.range:
private template MostDerivedInputRangeImpl(R) {
private
Jonathan M Davis:
Though seriously, given the large scope of bugs that he reports, I doubt that
he
knows enough to fix very many of them. Particularly if they're compiler bugs,
it
can take a lot of knowledge about exactly how dmd, druntime, and phobos work
to
be able to come up with
On 29/08/10 11:57, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 28 August 2010 19:06:42 Yao G. wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:59:02 -0500, bearophilebearophileh...@lycos.com
wrote:
Among the Bugzilla entries added by me, I suggest Don to focus his
efforts on (and try to create patches for):
3971 3849
Among the Bugzilla entries added by me, I suggest Don to focus his efforts on
(and try to create patches for):
3971 3849 3948 3856 3825 3878 3981 3990 3999 4053 4085 4216 4349
4375 4407 4475 4625 4511 4530 4580 4664 4668 4678 4703 4733
Entries in that list often don't contain normal bugs or
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:59:02 -0500, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com
wrote:
Among the Bugzilla entries added by me, I suggest Don to focus his
efforts on (and try to create patches for):
3971 3849 3948 3856 3825 3878 3981 3990 3999 4053 4085 4216 4349
4375 4407 4475 4625 4511 4530 4580
On Saturday 28 August 2010 19:06:42 Yao G. wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:59:02 -0500, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com
wrote:
Among the Bugzilla entries added by me, I suggest Don to focus his
efforts on (and try to create patches for):
3971 3849 3948 3856 3825 3878 3981 3990 3999
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:27:27 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmail.com wrote:
He's too busy finding other bugs. ;)
Though seriously, given the large scope of bugs that he reports, I doubt
that he
knows enough to fix very many of them. Particularly if they're compiler
bugs, it
can
On Saturday 28 August 2010 19:44:36 Yao G. wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:27:27 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmail.com wrote:
He's too busy finding other bugs. ;)
Though seriously, given the large scope of bugs that he reports, I doubt
that he
knows enough to fix very many of
On Thursday, August 26, 2010 17:42:18 bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
I just hope you can be realistic about how much can be done about them in
the short term.
Most of of my bugzilla entries are normal bugs, suggestions for improved
error messages and diagnostic, Phobos bugs, enhancement
On 26/08/10 07:57, Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
This is why I don't like a lot the current work done for the 64 bit
implementation.
A lot of groups cannot consider D unless it supports 64 bit compilation.
D2 has some design problems (I don't call them 'enhancement
Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
This is why I don't like a lot the current work done for the 64 bit
implementation.
A lot of groups cannot consider D unless it supports 64 bit compilation.
D2 has some design problems (I don't call them 'enhancement
requests') that if you want to fix
Walter Bright wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
A lot of people will be pleased to
see 64-bit D.
64 bit has been pushed aside for around 7 years now in favor of more
urgent matters. It's time to get it done.
Also, I think it's critical to be certain there's nothing in the
language which is
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
A lot of people will be pleased to
see 64-bit D.
64 bit has been pushed aside for around 7 years now in favor of more
urgent matters. It's time to get it done.
Also, I think it's
Daniel Gibson:
I'd suggest to always write the length as a (u)long - or uint,
char-arrays/strings that are bigger than 4GB are just insane, anyway.
(Java uses short in a similar method, IIRC).
A long suffices there, no need to use a cent.
Bye,
bearophile
Walter Bright:
I just hope you can be realistic about how much can be done about them in the
short term.
Most of of my bugzilla entries are normal bugs, suggestions for improved error
messages and diagnostic, Phobos bugs, enhancement requests, _additive_ changes,
etc, that don't require any D
... At the moment, Walter Bright's first priority is to finalize the 64-bit
native compiler, after which he plans to focus on dynamic loading.
At first I was like :D
... There's no incompatible D3 in the foreseeable future ...
but then I bummed.
... Get this�I've seen beautiful PHP code...
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 17:27:41 Ben White wrote:
... There's no incompatible D3 in the foreseeable future ...
but then I bummed.
We need D2 to completely and totally stable before we even consider anything
like D3. If you don't properly stabilize what you have and let it mature, it's
Jonathan M Davis
If D2's user base really increases like we'd like it to (and TDPL should help
a lot with
that), it's going to cost users a lot more when backwards compatability is
broken.
This is why I don't like a lot the current work done for the 64 bit
implementation. D2 has some
Implementation matters come after design matters if you impose the constraint
of keeping backwards compatibility.
But I agree that 64 bits is a quite important implementation matter, while
those things I did list were very little design matters :-)
Bye,
bearophile
On 26/08/10 10:55, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis
If D2's user base really increases like we'd like it to (and TDPL should help a
lot with
that), it's going to cost users a lot more when backwards compatability is
broken.
This is why I don't like a lot the current work done for the 64
Justin Johansson:
++vote
But this time I was a pretty idealistic person. So in the end I respect Walter
decision, because he may have taken in account more practical considerations.
Bye,
bearophile
Ben White schrieb:
... At the moment, Walter Bright's first priority is to finalize the
64-bit
native compiler, after which he plans to focus on dynamic loading.
At first I was like :D
Yeah, that's great news - I started a new project about 6 weeks ago
still in D1, because D2 lacks AMD64
On 26/08/10 11:26, bearophile wrote:
Justin Johansson:
++vote
But this time I was a pretty idealistic person. So in the end I respect Walter
decision, because he may have taken in account more practical considerations.
Bye,
bearophile
Yes, understand and obviously it's Walter's call. In
On 8/25/10 20:09 PDT, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Ben White schrieb:
... At the moment, Walter Bright's first priority is to finalize the
64-bit
native compiler, after which he plans to focus on dynamic loading.
At first I was like :D
Yeah, that's great news - I started a new project about 6
bearophile wrote:
This is why I don't like a lot the current work done for the 64 bit
implementation.
A lot of groups cannot consider D unless it supports 64 bit compilation.
D2 has some design problems (I don't call them 'enhancement
requests') that if you want to fix may require to break
Justin Johansson wrote:
A lot of people will be pleased to
see 64-bit D.
64 bit has been pushed aside for around 7 years now in favor of more urgent
matters. It's time to get it done.
36 matches
Mail list logo
