Benji Smith wrote:
Don wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Don wrote:
druntime should certainly not become any bigger (in scope), as that
would defeat the purpose of separating the runtime from userspace in
the first place. The topic of common userspace functionality should
be kept separate from
Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:53:02 -0500, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2009-01-19 18:11:15 -0500, Sergey Gromov said:
>
>> I think "can't" is a bit strong a statement. Let's see:
>>
>> With opApply:
>>
>> class progressUpdater(Collection)
>> {
>> this(Collection c)
>> {
>> collection_ = c;
>> }
Don wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Don wrote:
druntime should certainly not become any bigger (in scope), as that
would defeat the purpose of separating the runtime from userspace in
the first place. The topic of common userspace functionality should be
kept separate from the topic of drunti
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Don wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Johan,
As a user of D primarily and of the standard libraries secondly I see
this reluctance to solve the library situation as the single biggest
threat to D. It creates a division in the community and an uncertainty
of which libr
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
druntime should certainly not become any bigger (in scope), as that would
defeat the purpose of separating the runtime from userspace in the first place.
The topic of common userspace functionality should be kept separate from the
topic of druntime.
Okay, how about a
Don wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> Hello Johan,
>>
>>
>>> As a user of D primarily and of the standard libraries secondly I see
>>> this reluctance to solve the library situation as the single biggest
>>> threat to D. It creates a division in the community and an uncertainty
>>> of which library
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:38:04 +0300, Jason House
> wrote:
>
> > Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> >
> >> I think believe we could take advantage of current state of both
> >> libraries in D2 - they are both incomplete and being redesigned to fit
> >> D2 better.
> >> We could re
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:38:04 +0300, Jason House
wrote:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
I think believe we could take advantage of current state of both
libraries in D2 - they are both incomplete and being redesigned to fit
D2 better.
We could revisit both Tango and Phobos, and clean them up by remo
On 2009-01-19 18:11:15 -0500, Sergey Gromov said:
I think "can't" is a bit strong a statement. Let's see:
With opApply:
class progressUpdater(Collection)
{
this(Collection c)
{
collection_ = c;
}
int opApply(int delegate(ref ElementType!(Collection)) dg)
{
composed_ = dg;
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
>>
>> The other option (which I would prefer) is for druntime to get bigger, and
>> encompass more of the common code from both. So that both Phobos and Tango
>> became (crucial) extension libraries over a small core. And the b
Don wrote:
The other option (which I would prefer) is for druntime to get bigger,
and encompass more of the common code from both. So that both Phobos and
Tango became (crucial) extension libraries over a small core. And the
bigger that common core becomes, the smaller the library problem beco
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> I think believe we could take advantage of current state of both libraries in
> D2 - they are both incomplete and being redesigned to fit D2 better.
> We could revisit both Tango and Phobos, and clean them up by removing
> outdated modules and modules with same functional
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:11:02 +0100, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Alexander Pánek
wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
Don wrote:
The other option (which I would prefer) is for druntime to get bigger,
and encompass more of the common code from both. So that both Phobo
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:15:06 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Other possible things involves a rudimentary profiler (checking for the
elapsed time at each loop iteration), or a progress monitoring template
(notifying another thread of the progress of a
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Alexander Pánek
wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>>
>> Don wrote:
>>>
>>> The other option (which I would prefer) is for druntime to get bigger,
>>> and encompass more of the common code from both. So that both Phobos
>>> and Tango became (crucial) extension libraries o
Don wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
[snip]
It means that any code which uses a library based on both Tango and a
library based on Phobos will end up with two copies of all of the
functions, and they'll have different name mangling etc. You end up
with two inco
Daniel Keep wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
[snip]
It means that any code which uses a library based on both Tango and a
library based on Phobos will end up with two copies of all of the
functions, and they'll have different name mangling etc. You end up
with two incompatible Big
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
IUnknown wrote:
Regarding Phobos + Tango, the minimum I expect is things like
containers, algorithm and common math stuff to be in one core module.
This is already bound to be an issue be
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> It means that any code which uses a library based on both Tango and a
>> library based on Phobos will end up with two copies of all of the
>> functions, and they'll have different name mangling etc. You end up
>> with two incompatible Bigint
Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
IUnknown wrote:
Regarding Phobos + Tango, the minimum I expect is things like
containers, algorithm and common math stuff to be in one core module.
This is already bound to be an issue because there is disagreement
Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
Can we work out the math stuff at least? There's no difference
between Phobos and Tango there. All we need is an agreement on common
module naming (eg, create core.math).
That would be great. I don't think that's a major issue anyway. If I
we
Denis Koroskin pisze:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:18:52 +0300, Benji Smith
wrote:
IUnknown wrote:
Agree. Which is why I said the problems you are facing seem to be
non-technical. I'm suggesting that the D library developers should
pick one and axe the other. *I* think what more important is to h
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:18:52 +0300, Benji Smith
wrote:
IUnknown wrote:
Agree. Which is why I said the problems you are facing seem to be
non-technical. I'm suggesting that the D library developers should pick
one and axe the other. *I* think what more important is to have one
single set
John Reimer wrote:
>
> Don wrote:
The other option (which I would prefer) is for druntime to get bigger,
and encompass more of the common code from both. So that both Phobos
and Tango became (crucial) extension libraries over a small core. And
the bigger that common core becomes, the smaller the
IUnknown wrote:
Agree. Which is why I said the problems you are facing seem to be non-technical. I'm suggesting that the D library developers should pick one and axe the other. *I* think what more important is to have one single set of containers in a single style rather than have two separate one
Hello Don,
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Johan,
As a user of D primarily and of the standard libraries secondly I
see this reluctance to solve the library situation as the single
biggest threat to D. It creates a division in the community and an
uncertainty of which library to base my own librari
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Johan,
As a user of D primarily and of the standard libraries secondly I see
this reluctance to solve the library situation as the single biggest
threat to D. It creates a division in the community and an uncertainty
of which library to base my own libraries on. If I u
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
IUnknown wrote:
Regarding Phobos + Tango, the minimum I expect is things like
containers, algorithm and common math stuff to be in one core module.
This is already bound to be an issue because there is disagreement on
how e.g.
Hello Johan,
As a user of D primarily and of the standard libraries secondly I see
this reluctance to solve the library situation as the single biggest
threat to D. It creates a division in the community and an uncertainty
of which library to base my own libraries on. If I use one and the
other
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
No, you misunderstand. I said safely call, not
exceptionally efficient. To me a virtual call would be
accep
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> No, you misunderstand. I said safely call, not exceptionally
>> efficient. To me a virtual call would
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
No, you misunderstand. I said safely call, not exceptionally
efficient. To me a virtual call would be acceptable. However, at
least in my cases, there would norma
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
No, you misunderstand. I said safely call, not exceptionally
efficient. To me a virtual call would be acceptable. However, at
least in my cases, there would normally
Don wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> Hello dsimcha,
>>
>>> == Quote from Daniel Keep (daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com)'s article
>>>
Piotrek wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>
>> Tango will stay Tango (and tango.*). The above naming assumes that
>> Tango will depend on Phobos
Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
IUnknown wrote:
Regarding Phobos + Tango, the minimum I expect is things like
containers, algorithm and common math stuff to be in one core module.
This is already bound to be an issue because there is disagreement on
how e.g. containers should look like
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
IUnknown wrote:
Regarding Phobos + Tango, the minimum I expect is things like
containers, algorithm and common math stuff to be in one core module.
This is already bound to be an issue because there is disagreement on
how e.g. containers should look like (Java-style
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
No, you misunderstand. I said safely call, not exceptionally
efficient. To me a virtual call would be acceptable. However, at
least in my cases, there would normally not be more than one
imlemented interface and suc
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't really understand whether it is required to distribute the
source code of a derivative work under the Academic Free License, so I
don't really
understand that.
It is not require
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
I thought the license page (.../wiki/License) was pretty clear ... even if the
licenses themselves aren't.
Actually this was something I meant to bring up. I couldn't actually
find that page when I was looking fo
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
I thought the license page (.../wiki/License) was pretty clear ... even if the
licenses themselves aren't.
Actually this was something I meant to bring up. I couldn't actually
find that page when I was looking fo
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> I thought the license page (.../wiki/License) was pretty clear ... even if
> the licenses themselves aren't.
Actually this was something I meant to bring up. I couldn't actually
find that page when I was looking for it. I ended up d
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> I can't really understand whether it is required to distribute the
>>> source code of a derivative work under the Academic Free License, so I
>>> don't really
>>> understand that.
>>
>> It is not required, A
"Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> I can't really understand whether it is required to distribute the source
>> code of a derivative work under the Academic Free License, so I don't
>> really
>> understand that.
>
> It is not required, AFAIK only LGPL and GPL of the common l
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> "Piotrek" wrote
Hello!
It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to
stay in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some
question appeare
"Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> "Piotrek" wrote
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to stay
>>> in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some
>>> question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Piotrek" wrote
>> Hello!
>>
>> It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to stay
>> in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some
>> question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it better to not
>> make such a bi
Don wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with some
>> developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in any
>> derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries).
>
> Are you sure? Where is that written down? I can't find
dsimcha Wrote:
> Yeah, but we also want decent performance and even compared to opApply,
> coroutines/fibers are slow as molasses in January at the North Pole during the
> last Ice Age.
One type of coroutine optimization was mentioned previously on this list:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Lars Ivar Igesund
wrote:
>>> There doesn't really need to be anything wrong with them. What's wrong
>>> with head/toe?
>>
>> It sounds stupid.
>
> Wholeheartedly agree.
Agreed too, what's wrong with first/last? They're completely obvious
and have no connotations
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> "Sean Kelly" wrote
> > Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> "Don" wrote
> >>> Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don wrote:
> > Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> Let's not forget the licensing issues.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> No, you misunderstand. I said safely call, not exceptionally
>> efficient. To me a virtual call would be acceptable. However, at
>> least in my cases, there would normally not be more than one
>> imlemented interface and such it would be a t
Christopher Wright wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> toe() ?! tail() good, rear() not so good, toe() sucks.
tail() is no good because it has a well-established meaning in
programming of being everything
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Jason House" wrote
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> Druntime is there, and it's up to the Tango team now.
>>
>> As I understand it, the biggest fear of the Tango team is to make an
>> official D2 version and then have to chase after a moving standard. If
>> an officia
"Sean Kelly" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> "Don" wrote
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with
>> some
>> developers license wise, as you mu
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Don" wrote
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with some
developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in
any
derivative wo
"John Reimer" wrote
> Hello Steven,
>> I don't see Tango and Phobos becoming more like one or the other, but
>> as others have said, there are definite sections of code that can be
>> used from both without interference. I/O is not one of them, and I
>> don't see that changing. But due to the ope
"Don" wrote
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don wrote:
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with some
developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in
any
derivative works (i
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with some
developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in any
derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries).
Are you sure?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with some
>> developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in any
>> derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries).
>
> Are you sure? Where
Jason House wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Druntime is there, and it's up to the Tango team now.
As I understand it, the biggest fear of the Tango team is to make an
official D2 version and then have to chase after a moving standard.
If an official port of Tango 0.99.7 was ported to work with dm
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with some
developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in any
derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries).
Are you sure? Where is that written down? I can't find that anywhere in
the
Hello Steven,
"Piotrek" wrote
Hello!
It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to
stay in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page)
some question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it
better to not make such a big division between phobos and
Sean Kelly:
> This assumes that the easy approach is slow and the fast approach is
> complex. I'd hope that we could find something that's both easy and
> fast :-)
I agree that certain times it's possible to have something that is both simple,
safe, short and fast (but if that yield can be used
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
> > I know. Its popularity is part of what makes it dangerous. It's to good
> > programming what fast food is to food :o).
> I think that's a false analogy: fast food kills you slowly, while experience
> shows me
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> I know. Its popularity is part of what makes it dangerous. It's to good
> programming what fast food is to food :o).
I think that's a false analogy: fast food kills you slowly, while experience
shows me that in many programs a significant (large) percentage of lines of
c
Jason House wrote:
void iterateOverArray(T)(T[] arr){
foreach (i; 0..arr.length)
yield(arr[i]);
}
Coroutines are the slowest option, but the easiest to write. It takes 32
instructions or so to switch to or from a coroutine on x86. I'm not sure
how that translates in terms of memory usag
Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:15:06 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Michel Fortin wrote:
>> Other possible things involves a rudimentary profiler (checking for the
>> elapsed time at each loop iteration), or a progress monitoring template
>> (notifying another thread of the progress of a particular ta
aarti_pl wrote:
> first - last
> advance - retreat
My preference:
head - rhead
next - rnext (or advance - radvance)
The purpose of "retreat" and "toe" is to allow reverse iteration.
"retreat" in not the opposite of "advance"/"next", it's the same
operation applied to the other end of the rang
Andrei Alexandrescu pisze:
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Christopher,
Walter Bright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
toe() ?! tail() good, rear() not so good, toe() sucks.
tail() is no good because it has a well-established meaning in
programming o
Andrei Alexandrescu pisze:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
While we're on the subject of ditching, can we get rid of
foreach_reverse? How hard is it for a range to just have a reverse
property:
foreach(element; myrange.reverse)
Which simp
== Quote from Jason House (jason.james.ho...@gmail.com)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > Jason House wrote:
> >> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>
> >>> Speed is a small part of the equation, in fact a perk only. Ranges
> >>> are composable; you can combine them to e.g. do parallel iteratio
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Jason House wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Speed is a small part of the equation, in fact a perk only. Ranges
>>> are composable; you can combine them to e.g. do parallel iteration
>>> over two ranges. Ranges really open std.algorithm to all data
>>> stru
== Quote from Michel Fortin (michel.for...@michelf.com)'s article
> On 2009-01-18 10:21:55 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
> said:
> > It's been there for a while now (since 25 Nov 2008).
> >
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#ForeachStatement
> .next move the left edge of the
"Jason House" wrote
> Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> Druntime is there, and it's up to the Tango team now.
>
> As I understand it, the biggest fear of the Tango team is to make an
> official D2 version and then have to chase after a moving standard. If an
> official port of Tango 0.99.7 was ported to
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Speed is a small part of the equation, in fact a perk only. Ranges
are composable; you can combine them to e.g. do parallel iteration
over two ranges. Ranges really open std.algorithm to all data
structures. I find opApply incredibly obtuse and fost
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Speed is a small part of the equation, in fact a perk only. Ranges are
> composable; you can combine them to e.g. do parallel iteration over two
> ranges. Ranges really open std.algorithm to all data structures. I find
> opApply incredibly obtuse and fostering bad desi
Walter Bright wrote:
> Druntime is there, and it's up to the Tango team now.
As I understand it, the biggest fear of the Tango team is to make an official
D2 version and then have to chase after a moving standard. If an official port
of Tango 0.99.7 was ported to work with dmd v2.023 how willi
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
While we're on the subject of ditching, can we get rid of
foreach_reverse? How hard is it for a range to just have a reverse
property:
foreach(element; myrange.reverse)
Which simply reverses the order of tra
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> While we're on the subject of ditching, can we get rid of
>> foreach_reverse? How hard is it for a range to just have a reverse
>> property:
>>
>> foreach(element; myrange.reverse)
>>
>> Which simply reverses the order of traversal? Th
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Piotrek" wrote
Hello!
It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to stay
in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some
question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it better to not
make such a big division bet
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Unless it's a class you mean?
Yah, ranges are meant to have value semantics. If you have a class
container
exposing ranges, define the range separately fro
"Piotrek" wrote
> Hello!
>
> It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to stay
> in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some
> question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it better to not
> make such a big division between phobos and tang
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Depends on how you define "fancy". If "fancy" includes "composable",
opApply isn't that.
Andrei
Can you give an example of composable ranges, because I'm not sure exactly what
you mean or how it works.
Daniel Keep wrote:
Don wrote:
[snip]
And in fact, a Tango2 floor plan would be a good idea, too. For example,
now that D2 supports foreach ranges, Tango containers will almost
certainly want to support them.
For reference, from tango.util.collection.model.Iterator:
public interface Iterator
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
It's been there for a while now (since 25 Nov 2008).
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#ForeachStatement
Strange that I never noticed that. I remember when 2.022 came out, I did
not see it there, but I guess I could have o
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>
Unless it's a class you mean?
>>> Yah, ranges are meant to have value semantics. If you have a class
>>> container
>>> exposing ranges, define the range separately from the c
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> Depends on how you define "fancy". If "fancy" includes "composable",
> opApply isn't that.
> Andrei
Can you give an example of composable ranges, because I'm not sure exactly what
you mean or how it works.
Don wrote:
> [snip]
>
> And in fact, a Tango2 floor plan would be a good idea, too. For example,
> now that D2 supports foreach ranges, Tango containers will almost
> certainly want to support them.
For reference, from tango.util.collection.model.Iterator:
public interface Iterator(V)
{
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
> It's been there for a while now (since 25 Nov 2008).
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#ForeachStatement
Strange that I never noticed that. I remember when 2.022 came out, I did
not see it there, but I guess I could have overlooked it. It definitel
"Jason House" wrote
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> I'd be curious to find out more about a runtime queryable struct
>> interface. How would it work? What idioms would it enable?
>
> I don't know what Lars is thinking of, but I think of struct interfaces as
> a non-polymorphic / compile-time in
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Christopher,
Walter Bright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
toe() ?! tail() good, rear() not so good, toe() sucks.
tail() is no good because it has a well-established meaning in
programming of being everything but the f
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Don,
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
I completely disagree. I think the two libraries is a disaster. I
can
see that so many people have been exposed to a lifetime of
propaganda
that "competition is a good thing", but it's just propaga
Hello Christopher,
Walter Bright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
toe() ?! tail() good, rear() not so good, toe() sucks.
tail() is no good because it has a well-established meaning in
programming of being everything but the first element of a li
Hello Don,
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
I completely disagree. I think the two libraries is a disaster. I
can
see that so many people have been exposed to a lifetime of
propaganda
that "competition is a good thing", but it's just propaganda.
Competition ine
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-01-18 22:00:17 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
One point of clarification: opApply isn't going to be deprecated
anytime soon, is
it? It seems like ranges still h
Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:47:14 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>
>>> Unless it's a class you mean?
>>
>> Yah, ranges are meant to have value semantics. If you have a class container
>> exposing ranges, define the range separately from the cont
On 2009-01-18 22:00:17 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
One point of clarification: opApply isn't going to be deprecated
anytime soon, is
it? It seems like ranges still have a bunch of rough e
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
I completely disagree. I think the two libraries is a disaster. I can
see that so many people have been exposed to a lifetime of propaganda
that "competition is a good thing", but it's just propaganda.
Competition inevitably means
Alexander Pánek wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
D already has ONE standard library. It's called Phobos.
*yawn*
Don’t you get tired of this?
I do get tired of the misunderstanding of what Tango is that seems to
have arisen from the misterminolo
Stewart Gordon wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
D already has ONE standard library. It's called Phobos.
*yawn*
Don’t you get tired of this?
I do get tired of the misunderstanding of what Tango is that seems to
have arisen from the misterminology.
It didn’t arise fr
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
