Kagamin Wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
>
> > > On a US layout --
> > > @ is Shift+2
> > > but [ and ] are single keystrokes.
> > >
> > > --bb
> >
> > Ah, two keys. I thought two chars. But I use the pinky finger to do the
> > shift, isn't that less that a full blown finger to do [ or ]?
>
>
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
> > On a US layout --
> > @ is Shift+2
> > but [ and ] are single keystrokes.
> >
> > --bb
>
> Ah, two keys. I thought two chars. But I use the pinky finger to do the
> shift, isn't that less that a full blown finger to do [ or ]?
I thought, I'll break my fingers trying
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Kagamin wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
Java's syntax has the advantage of having to type less when the
annotation has no arguments: @annotati
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Kagamin wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
Java's syntax has the advantage of having to type less when the
annotation has no arguments: @annotation vs. [annotation].
In both
Frank Benoit Wrote:
> > And people here wonder why I custom order my laptops and keyboards to
> > get native US layouts..
> >
> > Jeremie
>
> Hehe, same here in Germany
In non-latin keyboard layouts there's no latin symbols at all. Feel the
difference.
Jeremie Pelletier schrieb:
> Back when I started programming on a french canadian layout, most of
> these symbols were located at crazy places, like ? is shift-6, [], {},
> <> are all found using right-alt + one of the many keys close to enter,
> which are used for accents, really annoying. Even th
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Kagamin wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
Java's syntax has the advantage of having to type less when the
annotation has no arguments: @annotation vs. [annotation].
In both
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Kagamin wrote:
>>
>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>>
>>> Java's syntax has the advantage of having to type less when the
>>> annotation has no arguments: @anno
Kagamin wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
Java's syntax has the advantage of having to type less when the annotation has
no arguments: @annotation vs. [annotation].
In both cases you have a two-keys overhead.
No, why?
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>Java's syntax has the advantage of having to type less when the annotation has
>no arguments: @annotation vs. [annotation].
In both cases you have a two-keys overhead.
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 8/4/09 18:55, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them until we can ha
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:20:38 +0400, Benji Smith
wrote:
Frank Benoit wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
call!(foo)(5, "hello")
with varaidic args?
Well some don't like to need to remember the order of arguments.
Andrei
Assigning the argument by name instead of o
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> What I'd like to see is something like this possible:
>
> void foo (int timeout, string bar, float f = 4.0);
>
> void foo(int timeout);
>
> call!(foo)("timeout=5,bar=\"hello\"");
>
> Taking into account the default value of f, what the parameters are named,
> an
Frank Benoit wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
call!(foo)(5, "hello")
with varaidic args?
Well some don't like to need to remember the order of arguments.
Andrei
Assigning the argument by name instead of order has two other benefits,
i can think of...
1. on the cal
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:20:53 -0400, Rainer Deyke
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
foo(timeout=5, bar="100")
It could also be accomplished via a fully implemented reflection
library, which is my side topic for this thread branch
On 8/4/09 19:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them until we c
On 8/5/09 00:22, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 8/4/09 18:55, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding the
On 8/4/09 18:55, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them until we can have full
reflection capa
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
For instance you could do this exact thing in C#, even though C# doesn't
support named parameters.
But they're coming:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264739(VS.100).aspx
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
> wrote:
>> foo(timeout=5, bar="100")
> It could also be accomplished via a fully implemented reflection
> library, which is my side topic for this thread branch :P
No. The names of positional arguments are an impl
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Well some don't like to need to remember the order of arguments.
But that's a way totally different thing discussed here.
First you need to introduce argument names when invo
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Well some don't like to need to remember the order of arguments.
But that's a way totally different thing discussed here.
First you need to introduce argument names when invoking a function.
void foo(i
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone
wrote:
Steven Schvei
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't thi
Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> call!(foo)(5, "hello")
>>
>> with varaidic args?
>
> Well some don't like to need to remember the order of arguments.
>
> Andrei
Assigning the argument by name instead of order has two other benefits,
i can think of...
1. on the call side,
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them unt
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:46:34 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:44:46 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What I'd like to see is something like this possible:
void foo (int timeout, string
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:44:46 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What I'd like to see is something like this possible:
void foo (int timeout, string bar, float f = 4.0);
void foo(int timeout);
call!(foo)("timeou
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:44:46 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What I'd like to see is something like this possible:
void foo (int timeout, string bar, float f = 4.0);
void foo(int timeout);
call!(foo)("timeout=5,bar=\"hello\"");
Taking
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them until we can have full
ref
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them until we can have full
reflection capabilities so we c
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:23:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them until we can have full reflection
capabilities so we can get at elements of code
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them until we can have full reflection
capabilities so we can get at elements of code and therefore get the
annotations associated with it. I see much mo
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:58:27 -0300, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:46:22 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:22:50 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Don wrote:
...
A question: in C#/Java, can you have annotations
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:58:27 -0300, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:46:22 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>>> Sergey Gromov wrote:
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:22:50 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> A question: in C#/Java, can you
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:46:22 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:22:50 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>>> Don wrote:
...
A question: in C#/Java, can you have annotations on function pointer and
delegate declarations?
void foo( int deleg
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:46:22 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:22:50 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Don wrote:
...
A question: in C#/Java, can you have annotations on function pointer and
delegate declarations?
void foo( int delegate(int) pure
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:51 -0400, grauzone wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
don't think it's worth adding them until we can have full reflection
capabilities so we can get at elements of code and therefore get the
annotations associated with it. I see much more usefulness for
annotat
Kagamin wrote:
grauzone Wrote:
inheritance?
You want to inherit annotations? What for?
Backward compatibility: obtain annotation cast it, work with it, then later
change its type. Annotations will be used by reflection, so classinfo will be
useful.
Code can do that at compiletime. No nee
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
For the record, I'm not really keen on using annotations for
*everything* as some people have suggested. They have good uses, but I
Me neither, but I think they'd be a worthy feature. Of course, there are
far more pressing issues, but if Walter has time to introdu
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:03:12 -0400, Don wrote:
A question: in C#/Java, can you have annotations on function pointer and
delegate declarations?
void foo( int delegate(int) pure dg) {
...
}
What would this look like with annotations?
(The underlying question is, how do annotations interact
Sergey Gromov wrote:
> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:22:50 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
>
>> Don wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> A question: in C#/Java, can you have annotations on function pointer and
>>> delegate declarations?
>>>
>>> void foo( int delegate(int) pure dg) {
>>> ...
>>> }
>>> What would this look l
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:22:50 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> A question: in C#/Java, can you have annotations on function pointer and
>> delegate declarations?
>>
>> void foo( int delegate(int) pure dg) {
>> ...
>> }
>> What would this look like with annotations?
>
> Well, Ja
Don escribió:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:42:33 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Don escribió:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a
Kagamin wrote:
Don Wrote:
To answer Don's point, there is nothing saying that the compiler can't
read attributes and change its behavior. Of course, those would have to
be builtin attributes.
Yes, but then they're just keywords, with an @ in front. You'd just be
kidding yourself if you think
Daniel Keep Wrote:
> Which one works right now and doesn't require you first spend at least a
> year convincing Walter that it's useful, then convincing him it's
> necessary
As far as I see, necessity is not questioned. It may be only of low priority or
something like that.
Don Wrote:
> > To answer Don's point, there is nothing saying that the compiler can't
> > read attributes and change its behavior. Of course, those would have to
> > be builtin attributes.
>
> Yes, but then they're just keywords, with an @ in front. You'd just be
> kidding yourself if you thi
Don Wrote:
> > Annotations are useful in many ways, but without full reflection
> > capabilities, they are restricted to things that can read them via
> > source code, and so they are no better than comments.
>
> This is a very, very important observation, and I think it belongs in
> the DIP.
grauzone Wrote:
> > inheritance?
>
> You want to inherit annotations? What for?
Backward compatibility: obtain annotation cast it, work with it, then later
change its type. Annotations will be used by reflection, so classinfo will be
useful.
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
> Yes, they have to be. There are reasons besides overloading for including
> other attributes in the naming.
>
> For example, if a function is pure, then becomes unpure, you don't
> existing code that is expecting a pure function to link against it.
>
> In oth
grauzone Wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
> >> Yes, but then they're just keywords, with an @ in front. You'd just be
> >> kidding yourself if you think you've reduced the keyword count.
> >
> > I suspect the reasoning goes like this:
> >
> > * I want attributes. Walter doesn't see the use.
> > * Wa
Daniel Keep wrote:
Yes, but then they're just keywords, with an @ in front. You'd just be
kidding yourself if you think you've reduced the keyword count.
I suspect the reasoning goes like this:
* I want attributes. Walter doesn't see the use.
* Walter complains about adding keywords.
* I can
Don wrote:
> ...
>
> A question: in C#/Java, can you have annotations on function pointer and
> delegate declarations?
>
> void foo( int delegate(int) pure dg) {
> ...
> }
> What would this look like with annotations?
Well, Java doesn't HAVE delegates and C# doesn't (AFAIK) allow you to
defi
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:42:33 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Don escribió:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Annotations have more usages than just how to serialize. Some uses I've
seen in C#:
* hints to an IDE about a GUI component (what it does, what properties
to allow setting via the visual builder)
* hints to the debugger about when to skip debugging certain function
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
being solved?
Keyword proliferation for a zillion tiny features? Annotations would
help with that very nicely.
--benji
Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:16:25 -0400, Yigal Chripun wrote:
> grauzone Wrote:
>
>> yigal chripun wrote:
>>> this is a good start but as already noted by others, you can't specify
>>> types with structs. we also can't use type tuples cause of the auto flatten
>>> behavior.
>>
>> And why can't we use
Steven Schveighoffer, el 3 de agosto a las 11:53 me escribiste:
> >But the DIP I wrote isn't about general-purpose annotations. It's just the
> >first step. Are "pure" and "nothrow" part of the mangling? Or which are? I
> >thought not. Can you overload a pure and a not-pure function with the sam
grauzone Wrote:
> yigal chripun wrote:
> > this is a good start but as already noted by others, you can't specify
> > types with structs. we also can't use type tuples cause of the auto flatten
> > behavior.
>
> And why can't we use structs? Unless I've missed something, it wasn't
> explained
/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the
problem being solved?
Attaching additional data to types, that can't be specified
otherwhere. This should help with metaprogramming-like stuff.
For example serialization. How do you specify that a field
shouldn&#x
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Don escribió:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the
problem being solved?
Attaching additional data to types,
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>> grauzone wrote:
>>> ...
>>> For example serialization. How do you specify that a field shouldn't be
>>> part of the serialized data? Java has an extra keyword attribute like
>>> "transient" (comes from before attributes were introduced). C# uses w
Max Samukha wrote:
It would be nice (and that is unlikely to happen) if the compiler
could rewrite
struct Foo
{
@Persistent("db_field")
@Serializable
int field;
}
to
struct Foo
{
int field;
mixin Persistent!("field", "db_field");
mixin Serializable!("field");
}
It'd
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:30:29 +1000, Daniel Keep
wrote:
>
>
>grauzone wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>>>
>>> This looks like a solution in se
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:42:33 -0400, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Don escribió:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What'
Kagamin wrote:
grauzone Wrote:
yigal chripun wrote:
this is a good start but as already noted by others, you can't specify types with structs. we also can't use type tuples cause of the auto flatten behavior.
And why can't we use structs? Unless I've missed something, it wasn't
explained in t
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Don escribió:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the
problem being solved?
Attaching additional data to types,
Daniel Keep wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
being solved?
Attaching additional data to types, that can't be specified
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:26:21 -0400, Don wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the
problem being solved?
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Don escribió:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the
problem being solved?
Attaching additional data to types, that can
grauzone wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>>
>> This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
>> being solved?
>
> Attaching additional da
I'd rather see this put off until we have macros; then steal the syntax
to mean the same thing it does in Python.
Ary Borenszweig, el 3 de agosto a las 11:14 me escribiste:
> >annotation syntax in C# and Java looks like an ugly hack to me. Purely a
> >subjective opinion, of course, but it seems really out of place in a
> >C-family
> >language.
>
> Attributes has many, many other uses. Appart from serializ
Don escribió:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
being solved?
Attaching additional data to types, that can't be specified
otherw
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:26:21 -0400, Don wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
being solved?
Attaching additional data to types,
Don Wrote:
> I agree that there doesn't seem to be a nice way at present. One
> possibility would be to establish a naming convention for transient
> fields -- a Ruby-style solution, I guess.
>
> But are annotations actually an ideal solution for this problem?
> Presumably, you'll have to speci
grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
being solved?
Attaching additional data to types, that can't be specified otherwhere.
This s
grauzone Wrote:
> yigal chripun wrote:
> > this is a good start but as already noted by others, you can't specify
> > types with structs. we also can't use type tuples cause of the auto flatten
> > behavior.
>
> And why can't we use structs? Unless I've missed something, it wasn't
> explained
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
VB uses angle brackets to delimit attributes. They usually don't repeat, only
chain... unless you want to put them in strange places...
Don Wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> > http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>
> This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
> being solved?
Lack of power. People today want powerful language. With attributes you
Lars T. Kyllingstad escribió:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
I like the idea of attributes having names that can never be
identifiers, since adding new attributes will then, as you point out,
never break existing code.
But won'
yigal chripun wrote:
this is a good start but as already noted by others, you can't specify types with structs. we also can't use type tuples cause of the auto flatten behavior.
And why can't we use structs? Unless I've missed something, it wasn't
explained in this thread.
Don wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
being solved?
Attaching additional data to types, that can't be specified otherwhere.
This should
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
I like the idea of attributes having names that can never be
identifiers, since adding new attributes will then, as you point out,
never break existing code.
But won't we lose this benefit if we
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. What's the problem
being solved?
grauzone Wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> > http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>
> The next step would be to introduce user defined annotations. I propose
> this:
>
> //--
>
> //declaring a user defined annotati
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
The next step would be to introduce user defined annotations. I propose
this:
//--
//declaring a user defined annotation type
@annotation
struct MyAnnotation {
int x;
char[] y
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
The next step would be to introduce user defined annotations. I propose
this:
//--
//declaring a user defined annotation type
@annotation
struct MyAnnotation {
int x;
char[] y
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:54:49 -0700, Robert Fraser
wrote:
>Max Samukha wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:24:26 -0700, Robert Fraser
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>>&g
Ary Borenszweig, el 2 de agosto a las 00:07 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella escribió:
> >Ary Borenszweig, el 1 de agosto a las 16:29 me escribiste:
> >>http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
> >Please, try to post at least the abstract of t
Max Samukha wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:24:26 -0700, Robert Fraser
wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
I think annotations are a good idea, but turning keywords already in the
language into annotations seems kinda pointless & w
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
I like this. Metadata is a very useful thing.
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:24:26 -0700, Robert Fraser
wrote:
>Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>
>I think annotations are a good idea, but turning keywords already in the
>language into annotations seems kinda pointless &
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Ellery
Newcomer wrote:
> They aren't. Decorators are deep crazy magic. As I recall,
>
> @mydecorator
> def myfunc(argsnjunk):
> pass
>
> transforms all calls to myfunc to a call to a function you defined
> somewhere named mydecorator, which takes a function and i
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella escribió:
>> Ary Borenszweig, el 1 de agosto a las 16:29 me escribiste:
>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>>
>> Please, try to post at least the abstract of the DIP with the link, so
>&g
Leandro Lucarella escribió:
Ary Borenszweig, el 1 de agosto a las 16:29 me escribiste:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
Please, try to post at least the abstract of the DIP with the link, so
people can easily know what is it about =)
And when writing a DIP, try
Leandro Lucarella, el 1 de agosto a las 20:28 me escribiste:
> Ary Borenszweig, el 1 de agosto a las 16:29 me escribiste:
> > http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>
> Please, try to post at least the abstract of the DIP with the link, so
> people ca
Ary Borenszweig, el 1 de agosto a las 16:29 me escribiste:
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
I really think that D should support some kind of annotations. I think
it's a good idea to add them in stages. I could add that in the first
stage, old-style at
Ary Borenszweig, el 1 de agosto a las 16:29 me escribiste:
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
Please, try to post at least the abstract of the DIP with the link, so
people can easily know what is it about =)
And when writing a DIP, try to make the abstract a lit
Robert Fraser wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6
>
> I think annotations are a good idea, but turning keywords already in the
> language into annotations seems kinda pointless & would kill backwards
> compa
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
