On Monday, April 18, 2016 20:49:45 jmh530 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> As an aside, the reason for not having function attribute
> inference everywhere is that it doesn't work when function bodies
> are not available. How common is this? I feel like I never write
> functions like this. Why not just m
Am Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:49:45 +
schrieb jmh530 :
> As an aside, the reason for not having function attribute
> inference everywhere is that it doesn't work when function bodies
> are not available. How common is this? I feel like I never write
> functions like this. Why not just make the rul
On Monday, 18 April 2016 at 19:57:42 UTC, cym13 wrote:
@default = @safe @nogc @pure
int foo(int i) { ... } // This function is @safe @nogc @pure
int bar(int i) @pure { ... } // This function is only @pure
Why not just put
@safe @nogc pure:
at the top? I feel like @default would
On Monday, 18 April 2016 at 19:57:42 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
Two
On Monday, April 18, 2016 13:10:59 jmh530 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 18 April 2016 at 12:11:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Regardless, changing any of the attributes now would break a
> > _lot_ of code, and such a change would have to be worth the
> > pain that it would cause, which
On Monday, 18 April 2016 at 12:11:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Regardless, changing any of the attributes now would break a
_lot_ of code, and such a change would have to be worth the
pain that it would cause, which is questinonable.
dfix has a DIP64 switch, right?
On Monday, April 18, 2016 10:32:39 Satoshi via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
> > http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
> >
> > Attributes in D have two problems:
> > 1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
> > verbose
> > 2. New att
On Monday, 18 April 2016 at 10:32:39 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
Lan
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
Nic
On Sunday, 17 April 2016 at 12:05:03 UTC, Anonymous5 wrote:
If attributes are well split into sub categories, we could
justify that a sub category will have @ and another not (e.g
protection attributes: not @, functions attributes: @).
The list of attributes that's not classified is:
+ static
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
@ex
On 06/22/14 14:18, Shammah Chancellor via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> So, basically we don't need special syntax for attribute sets, we just need
> to make it so built-in attributes are not "special?"
I think this is one option. But exposing them as symbols w/o breaking
too much existing code will
On 2014-06-21 19:33:44 +, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d said:
On 06/21/14 19:56, Shammah Chancellor via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I like it, but I think the attribute sets should be based on then alias
syntax though.
alias @attributeSet = (@attribute1, @attribute2, @attribute3);
Well, D do
On 06/22/14 08:26, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I would point out that if we do this, we should serious consider renaming pure
> to @noglobal rather than @pure, or even making it the default and then adding
> @global. That would make it so that we wouldn't have to keep explaining abo
On Sunday, 22 June 2014 at 06:37:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:07:22 -0700
I'd much rather just put up with having to explain to people
that we didn't
want to add new keywords and that that's why @safe, @trusted,
@system,
@property, and @nogc have @ o
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:07:22 -0700
Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:48:40 +
> Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> > Why is D being consistent with other languages a more important
> > goal than D being consistent with D?
>
> It's not, but there _is_ a
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:22:02 +
Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
>
> Attributes in D have two problems:
> 1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
> verbose
> 2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
>
> I've created a DIP to add
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:49:33 +
Mason McGill via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I was referring to the `Property` and `PropertyIdentifier`
> entities in the D grammar (http://dlang.org/attribute.html),
> which are special cases of attributes. "New-style" attributes,
> like "property", "safe", and "nog
On Sunday, 22 June 2014 at 05:18:05 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 00:12:20 +
Mason McGill via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
"Attribute" and "property" are pretty much synonyms in English,
and it always seemed strange to me that D had to define them as
differen
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:48:40 +
Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 19:41:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > And to add to that, this proposal doesn't even make things
> > consistent. You
> > _still_ have to explain why some attributes have
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 00:12:20 +
Mason McGill via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> "Attribute" and "property" are pretty much synonyms in English,
> and it always seemed strange to me that D had to define them as
> different--yet confusingly similar--entities.
They're not even vaguely similar in D. A pr
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 22:01:31 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/20/2014 09:22 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've c
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 20:48:41 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
I think the proposal said that the type constructors would be
exempt, You wouldn't have @const but you would have @final.
I think you needed to underline this part better. This is indeed
extremely important, and that is the reason
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 19:41:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
And to add to that, this proposal doesn't even make things
consistent. You
_still_ have to explain why some attributes have @ and some
don't. It's just
that now two of them have @ whereas they didn't before. fin
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:41:26PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
> And to add to that, this proposal doesn't even make things consistent.
> You _still_ have to explain why some attributes have @ and some don't.
> It's just that now two of them have @ whereas they didn't be
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 17:54:33 +
Peter Alexander via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 17:20:08 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > I completely agree with your point, but if things never get
> > cleaned up we'll need a guy like Scott Meyers to explain the
> > overcomplicated result.
On 06/21/14 19:56, Shammah Chancellor via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I like it, but I think the attribute sets should be based on then alias
> syntax though.
>
> alias @attributeSet = (@attribute1, @attribute2, @attribute3);
Well, D does not have that kind of tuple syntax and introducing one for
thi
I think you misunderstood me.
I didn't say that C++ is useless and C can do all the things.
I spoken only about attributes.
D gives much more static checks and other great things.
And i'm unsure only at necessity of all these attributes.
In all my code i really uses only " const ", " immutable "
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 18:20:43 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
And attributes - it's only restrictions and gives almost
nothing.
I'll reiterate that the restrictions in question make code easier
to reason about. Increased reasoning is not "almost nothing" ...
in fact, that's one of the main benef
Temtaime:
If you don't want to play with pointers - just don't do it
instead of writing @safe etc.
This is the C approach to programming, that has worked well
enough for many years. Give the programmers all the sharp tools
and let them sort out their usage and to follow sufficient safety
m
We can try to emulate it, yes. But it results in bug-prone and
'll ugly.
C++ gives more comfortable ways to implement things.
And attributes - it's only restrictions and gives almost nothing.
If you don't want to play with pointers - just don't do it
instead of writing @safe etc.
Temtaime:
Too many attributes in D.
In C++ there is no pure, safe, trusted and others.
And it's C++ that shows that almost all of D attributes are not
necessary.
And C shows that most C++ features are not necessary. You can
implement OOP manually, etc.
Bye,
bearophile
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 18:07:25 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
And it's C++ that shows that almost all of D attributes are not
necessary.
How so?
Anyway, I totally agree that attributes NEED cleanup, it really
makes zero sense to have some without "@" annotation. Really,
keep Scott's talk in min
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 18:07:25 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
Too many attributes in D.
In C++ there is no pure, safe, trusted and others.
And it's C++ that shows that almost all of D attributes are not
necessary.
Welcome to attribute hell !
Of course. But pure/safe/trusted/others statically v
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 18:11:32 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 18:07:25 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
Too many attributes in D.
In C++ there is no pure, safe, trusted and others.
And it's C++ that shows that almost all of D attributes are
not necessary.
Welcome to attribute
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:22:02 +
Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
>
> Attributes in D have two problems:
> 1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
> verbose
> 2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
>
> I've created a DIP to add
Too many attributes in D.
In C++ there is no pure, safe, trusted and others.
And it's C++ that shows that almost all of D attributes are not
necessary.
Welcome to attribute hell !
On 2014-06-20 19:22:02 +, Brian Schott said:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
I like it, but I
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 17:20:08 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
I completely agree with your point, but if things never get
cleaned up we'll need a guy like Scott Meyers to explain the
overcomplicated result. I don't know how to resolve this issue,
opponents of change will claim that a language
On Saturday, 21 June 2014 at 17:11:24 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
All things being equal, it would be nicer to have consistency,
but do we really I want to break almost all existing code?
I know you've
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
All things being equal, it would be nicer to have consistency,
but do we really I want to break almost all existing code?
I know you've proposed a tool to do the transition, but there are
lots of unmain
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
I a
+1 to this proposal; as someone trying to annotate their D code
appropriately, the inconsistency in the usage of @ forces me to
look up the docs every time, which leads to considerable
productivity loss. I'm sure it's less of an issue when one is
sufficiently versed in annotation, but I find it
On 06/20/2014 09:22 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
Why not make the built
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:22:02 -0400, Brian Schott
wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
I like
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:47:07 -0400, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:22:02PM +, Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too verbose
2. N
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:48:49 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
First, there is no way to mark a function as *impure* as
opposed to pure
(leaving out "pure" is not an option in template functions due
to
automatic attribute inference). Also, there's an inconsistency
between
positive
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
It
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
The
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
I l
On Friday, 20 June 2014 at 19:22:04 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
Doe
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:22:02PM +, Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
>
> Attributes in D have two problems:
> 1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too verbose
> 2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
>
> I've created a DIP t
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64
Attributes in D have two problems:
1. There are too many of them and declarations are getting too
verbose
2. New attributes use @ and the old ones do not.
I've created a DIP to address these issues.
55 matches
Mail list logo
