davidl wrote:
Any comments? Do you like this feature?
And here it is (called opDispatch, Michel Fortin's suggestion):
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset?new=trunk%2f...@268old=trunk%2f...@267
Walter Bright:
And here it is (called opDispatch, Michel Fortin's suggestion):
That's short code.
Do you like my related suggestion of opDynamic (that works with run-time method
names)?
Bye,
bearophile
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
And here it is (called opDispatch, Michel Fortin's suggestion):
That's short code.
Do you like my related suggestion of opDynamic (that works with run-time method
names)?
opDispatch can be written to do runtime method names, no language
changes needed.
Walter Bright:
opDispatch can be written to do runtime method names, no language
changes needed.
Very good. Then the opDynamic name wasn't wrong.
Can someone show me a small example of how to use it with runtime method names?
Bye,
bearophile
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:37:34 +0100, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
davidl wrote:
Any comments? Do you like this feature?
And here it is (called opDispatch, Michel Fortin's suggestion):
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset?new=trunk%2f...@268old=trunk%2f...@267
bearophile wrote:
Can someone show me a small example of how to use it with runtime method names?
class C
{
void dynamic(string s, int i)
{
...
}
void opDispatch(string s)(int i)
{
dynamic(s, i);
}
}
Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Just tested it - it does not seem to allow template parameters beyond
just the
function name. Is this something we can expect in the future?
The use case I have is this:
struct foo {
void opDispatch( string name, T )( T value ) {
static if ( is( T == float ) ) {
Danny Wilson wrote:
Now let's go from that obvious observation to opDotExp()
You know the class uses opDotExp() because it said so in the docs.
Examples that could really benifit from this are:
- XMLRPC and other kinds of remoting
- Quick access to: XML / JSON / Yaml / Config files / DB
Hello Yigal,
I was meaning static as in static if.
I agree with what you've written here. I think my point in this
sub-thread is a bit side-tracked from the main topic.
there seems to be a lot of that in this thread
again, what you said is correct, but since in our example we are
discussing
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:54:21 -0400, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:09:28 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, there are many things that opDotExp can do that opDot or alias
this (which is essentially opDot without any code). Hooking
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:54:21 -0400, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:09:28 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, there are many things that opDotExp can do that opDot or alias
this (which is essentially opDot
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:47:53 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:54:21 -0400, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:09:28 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes,
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Haven't used D2 for much stuff, but does this work? I remember reading
something about partial IFTI, so if you have
opDotExp(string fname, T...) (T args){}
and you call
opDotExp!(b)(c, d, e)
Does it implicitly define T?
-Steve
It should, but there's a bug
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-20 07:25:43 -0400, Christopher Wright dhase...@gmail.com said:
BCS wrote:
Hello Christopher,
The utility is when you are looking for methods to invoke via runtime
reflection, you can determine that a given function is one of these
runtime opDotExp
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:05:30 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I gave this a lot of thought, and I think here is a possible solution:
the main reason I'm hesitant on this idea is because of code like this:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
What about using something like '-' for dynamic calls instead of
Adam Burton wrote:
What about using something like '-' for dynamic calls instead of '.'?
When
you see '.' your safe in the knowledge that at a glance you know said
method
with said signature exists else the compiler will throw a paddy, when you
see '-' you know that method call is evaluated
BCS wrote:
Hello Adam,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The point of using . is not syntactic convenience as much as the
ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with
algorithms that use the standard notation.
What if the dot remained
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
What about using something like '-' for
On 2009-04-18 22:21:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but continue
the terrible confusion going in this thread.
Then let's try to remove some of that confusion.
You say: well if opDot were a template
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:57 -0400, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:26:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:57 -0400, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:26:11 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:57 -0400, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei
Michel Fortin wrote:
The thing is that the name of that catchAllHandlerFunc function needs
to be standardised for it to work with runtime reflection.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
However, opDotExp would be hamstringed if it were made to serve this
function.
Since classes can implement
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 22:21:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but continue
the terrible confusion going in this thread.
Then let's try to remove some of that confusion.
Thanks for doing
Hello Adam,
BCS wrote:
Hello Adam,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The point of using . is not syntactic convenience as much as the
ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with
algorithms that use the standard notation.
What if the
On 19/04/2009 23:33, BCS wrote:
Hello Yigal,
On 19/04/2009 01:22, BCS wrote:
Hello Yigal,
On 18/04/2009 21:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
In the syntax
a.b
how would either of a and b be identified at runtime? I mean, you
write the code somewhere and it gets compiled. It's not like
Hello Yigal,
everything you said is true. there is some sort of a compile-time
since
the code is getting compiled. But in the above scheme there isn't any
real difference between run-time and compile-time and this distinction
has lost its meaning.
compare the following:
process A:
1) use
BCS wrote:
Hello Adam,
BCS wrote:
Hello Adam,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The point of using . is not syntactic convenience as much as the
ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with
algorithms that use the standard
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 22:21:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but continue
the terrible confusion going in this thread.
Then let's try to remove some of that
Hello Adam,
BCS wrote:
(In the above, you seeme to be working with the assumption of the non
static opDotExp form. I, BTW, see no use for it as it adds no new
functionality to D where as the static opDotExp(char[],T...)(T t)
form adds a new ability)
When you say static opDotExp I am
Christopher Wright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 22:21:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but
continue the terrible confusion going in this thread.
Then let's try
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
You completely lost me about the necessity of a standardized catch-all
function. My view is that if you want to forward to someone else, you
just call the runtime invoke() for the guy you want to forward to. So
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:42:19 -0400, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:26:11 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:57 -0400, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven
Hello BCS,
That didn't sound like I intended it to so...
Clarification: I think most of us could convince most of the rest of us of
the our point given face time because I don't think there are near as many
opposing views as it seems. (That is with points of operation, not with issues
of
Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:20090417231958.gb27...@homero.springfield.home...
Nick Sabalausky, el 17 de abril a las 16:48 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:20090417191634.ga15...@homero.springfield.home...
Steven
Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message
news:gsbovk$nb...@digitalmars.com...
davidl wrote:
ÔÚ Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:45:43 +0800£¬Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a дµÀ:
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:gsak2p$1s8...@digitalmars.com...
I think there's merit in
Rainer Deyke rain...@eldwood.com wrote in message
news:gsbodm$mj...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
But anyway, like I've said before, syntactic sugar is fine, but this is
syntactic sugar that undermines the programmer's ability to rely on
compile-time checking of class members. But
Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote in message
news:gsbru0$rb...@digitalmars.com...
Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message
news:gsbovk$nb...@digitalmars.com...
The problem is a lack of notification at compile time. Runtime exceptions
are the problem, not the solution.
By the way, if the opDot
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Pascalize!S s;
s.foo(); // works
s.Foo(); // works too
s.fOo(); // yup, works again
I can show something even more extreme :-)
What we are discussing in this thread is named the __getattr__ method in Python:
On 18/04/2009 04:54, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm all for expanding runtime introspection that remains within the type
system, I'm even for adding some possibility to create dynamically
dispatched functions, as long as those functions are called differently
from normal functions.
-Steve
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote in message
news:gsbru0$rb...@digitalmars.com...
Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message
news:gsbovk$nb...@digitalmars.com...
The problem is a lack of notification at compile time. Runtime exceptions
are the problem, not the solution.
By
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 18/04/2009 04:54, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm all for expanding runtime introspection that remains within the type
system, I'm even for adding some possibility to create dynamically
dispatched functions, as long as those functions are called differently
from normal
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:gsav4n$2ij...@digitalmars.com...
It's a good question. opDotExp leaves more flexibility because it allows
for a host of compile-time manipulations, e.g. decide to forward to a
member etc. Also consider this (probably
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:gsbv56$13c...@digitalmars.com...
I think there's a confusion somewhere. Are you sure you know what you
don't like? :o)
Over here it's 3:30 in the morning at the moment: I don't know a damn thing
about anything right
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Pascalize!S s;
s.foo(); // works
s.Foo(); // works too
s.fOo(); // yup, works again
I can show something even more extreme :-)
What we are discussing in this thread is named the __getattr__ method in
Python:
Op Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:24:39 +0200 schreef Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
now you have an easy way to know if a type is dynamic without changing
the method invocation syntax. A proper IDE can easily mark those Types
as different, for example, using a different color.
Op Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:31:04 +0200 schreef Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a:
But with opDotExp, its mere *existence* undermines my ability to be sure
that non-quoted identifiers are ok as long as they've compiled. That
type of
tradeoff is obviously fine when the potential benefits are significant
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
If the member-name parameter to opDotExp was *required* to be a template
paramater, then I agree, and I would have no objections to having that.
But
it should be pointed out that that would not actually be dynamic
invokation,
since you wouldn't be able to invoke a
Op Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:25:55 +0200 schreef Danny Wilson
blueze...@gmail.com:
Op Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:31:04 +0200 schreef Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a:
so far, opDotExp's benefits are trivial at best. I don't want to have to
keep track of ok, is this class using opDotExp or not, because if it
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:24:04 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:44:09 -0400, Leandro Lucarella
llu...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't fully understand the example though. In writefln((v.qq = 5).i),
how
downs:
Static loops are simple, at least in functions.
...
void main() {
foreach (i, bogus; Repeat!(void, 15))
writefln(i);
}
My dlibs have:
Range!([start], stop[, step])
with it I think your code becomes:
void main() {
foreach (i; Range!(15))
putr(i);
}
But a static
bearophile wrote:
downs:
Static loops are simple, at least in functions.
...
void main() {
foreach (i, bogus; Repeat!(void, 15))
writefln(i);
}
My dlibs have:
Range!([start], stop[, step])
with it I think your code becomes:
void main() {
foreach (i; Range!(15))
downs:
bearophile:
But a static foreach (on a static data structure that has opApply) is not
doable yet, I think.
Foreach on a tuple is evaluated at compile-time.
Yes, that's the whole point of that Range!().
But you can't use that trick on an associative array, or a struct with OpApply,
On 2009-04-18 03:23:21 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
If you want to invoke a method known as a string variable, opDot or
whatever has nothing to do with it. You don't need any change to the
language at all, because you'd write:
string foo = bar;
d.call(foo);
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:54:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrei wrote:
We are discussing a language extension. That language extension will
allow a type to choose flexibility in defining methods dynamically,
while being otherwise
Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:54:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrei wrote:
We are discussing a language extension. That language extension will
allow a type to choose flexibility in defining methods dynamically,
while being
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Christopher Wright dhase...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gsb05g$2in...@digitalmars.com...
Assuming that you are testing the logic of your application, you will
trivially check things like accessing legnth rather than length --
under the assumption that these two
Daniel Keep wrote:
Cool! I suggest the rewrite:
c.unknownmethod(args) - c.opDotExp!(unknownmethod)(args)
That way you have the option of handling the method name statically or
dynamically.
Careful. If you do that, you need to make sure it's possible to invoke
a given method at runtime.
Nick Sabalausky, el 18 de abril a las 02:19 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:20090417231958.gb27...@homero.springfield.home...
Nick Sabalausky, el 17 de abril a las 16:48 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote in message
Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
So now, let's try this again:
What is this usefulness you speak of that traditional dynamic methods
and/or
opDotSrc dynamic methods have that is more useful than a dispatch method?
Uniform (and better) syntax. It's just about that.
I too am having
SandeepK:
I too am having difficulty in understanding the benefit of this particular
proposal.
Read the thread, some of the answers give several use cases.
If I understand it right, the string essentially is still static and hence
known at compile time?
It can be unknown at compile-time.
Daniel Keep wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Pascalize!S s;
s.foo(); // works
s.Foo(); // works too
s.fOo(); // yup, works again
I can show something even more extreme :-)
What we are discussing in this thread is named the __getattr__ method in Python:
downs wrote:
Static loops are simple, at least in functions.
import std.stdio;
template Tuple(T...) { alias T Tuple; }
template Repeat(T, int I) { static if (!I) alias Tuple!() Repeat; else alias
Tuple!(T, Repeat!(T, I-1)) Repeat; }
void main() {
foreach (i, bogus; Repeat!(void, 15))
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 03:23:21 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
If you want to invoke a method known as a string variable, opDot or
whatever has nothing to do with it. You don't need any change to the
language at all, because you'd write:
string
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I know, but at about the fiftienth one you get sick of it.
In some situations static loops can be useful, but in general isn't the
compiler supposed to be able to perform loop unrolling by itself, according to
compilation arguments and according to how much code is present
Hello bearophile,
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I know, but at about the fiftienth one you get sick of it.
In some situations static loops can be useful, but in general isn't
the compiler supposed to be able to perform loop unrolling by itself,
according to compilation arguments and according to how
Daniel Keep, el 18 de abril a las 19:08 me escribiste:
So I have created this, that I actually use in a large Graph class of mine
that has many methods:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/409000/
Such class can be used from the interactive shell too, to play with graphs
in an
Hello Andrei,
The dynamic behavior is indicated by the use of opDotExp. The
redundancy of the two notations doesn't quite sit well.
Andrei
not exactly 1-to-1 but:
abstract class C { void foo(); } // works
class D { void foo(); } // fails: link error
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:46:36 +0400, BCS n...@anon.com wrote:
Hello Andrei,
The dynamic behavior is indicated by the use of opDotExp. The
redundancy of the two notations doesn't quite sit well.
Andrei
not exactly 1-to-1 but:
abstract class C { void foo(); } // works
class D { void foo();
Hello Christopher,
Testing the logic of your code will catch the latter error and not the
former. But the former isn't an error, if it has the same result.
IIRC dynamic language do gobs of TDD/unittests because they have no choice
for just this reason. Any other approach and you have no
Hello Denis,
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:46:36 +0400, BCS n...@anon.com wrote:
not exactly 1-to-1 but:
Bad example:
So I saw, I'm just saying it's not without precedent.
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:43:22 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:54:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrei wrote:
We are discussing a language extension. That language extension will
allow a type to choose flexibility
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Yes. The amount of confusion in this thread is staggering.
I think I have misunderstood about the whole thread then. If the string isn't
determined at run time, then this thing isn't useful for my purposes, and it's
not close to the object-C as I was talking about, and
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
There's an interesting idea...
Instead of No member 'foo', you could have No member 'foo'; did you
mean 'far' or 'fur'?
Heh. The string kernels in std.numeric
(http://erdani.dreamhosters.com/d/web/phobos/std_numeric.html) are to
help with
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
There's an interesting idea...
Instead of No member 'foo', you could have No member 'foo'; did you
mean 'far' or 'fur'?
Heh. The string kernels in std.numeric
(http://erdani.dreamhosters.com/d/web/phobos/std_numeric.html)
bearophile wrote:
downs:
bearophile:
But a static foreach (on a static data structure that has opApply) is not
doable yet, I think.
Foreach on a tuple is evaluated at compile-time.
Yes, that's the whole point of that Range!().
But you can't use that trick on an associative array, or a
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
...
Andrei, I think you, and perhaps everyone here, are overlooking one
small but important detail.
opDotExp, if a template like you're adovcating, undermines future
runtime dynamic call capabilities (which are part of most runtime
在 Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:16:30 +0800，Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org 写道:
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Yes. The amount of confusion in this thread is staggering.
I think I have misunderstood about the whole thread then. If the
string isn't determined at run time,
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Please do not accuse me of such a thing simply because I haven't
changed my opinion. You've held your ground as well, so I could just as
easily accuse you of being closed-minded and merely reaffirming a your
On 2009-04-18 11:19:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I'm confused. Isn't it clear that at the moment we have the ability
to pass a function name as a runtime string?
Indeed, you can pass the template argument as a runtime argument to
another function. No
On 18/04/2009 21:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Yes. The amount of confusion in this thread is staggering.
I think I have misunderstood about the whole thread then. If the
string isn't determined at run time, then this thing isn't useful for
my
在 Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:15:02 +0800，Daniel Keep
daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com 写道:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
...
Andrei, I think you, and perhaps everyone here, are overlooking one
small but important detail.
opDotExp, if a template like you're adovcating, undermines
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 11:19:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I'm confused. Isn't it clear that at the moment we have the ability
to pass a function name as a runtime string?
Indeed, you can pass the template argument as a runtime argument to
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:43:15 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:43:22 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:54:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrei wrote:
We are discussing a
davidl wrote:
在 Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:16:30 +0800，Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org 写道:
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Yes. The amount of confusion in this thread is staggering.
I think I have misunderstood about the whole thread then. If the
string isn't determined
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 11:19:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I'm confused. Isn't it clear that at the moment we have the ability
to pass a function name as a runtime string?
Indeed, you can pass the template argument as a runtime argument to
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 18/04/2009 21:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Yes. The amount of confusion in this thread is staggering.
I think I have misunderstood about the whole thread then. If the
string isn't determined at run time, then this thing isn't
Yigal Chripun wrote:
what prevents D from having an eval function?
suppose someone modifies the DMD front-end to compile a string with the
source code of a function in-memory, than this is processed by something
based on DDL and what you get is an API call that takes source code in a
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Yes. The amount of confusion in this thread is staggering.
I think I have misunderstood about the whole thread then. If the string isn't
determined at run time, then this thing isn't useful for my purposes, and it's
not close to the object-C as I was
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Adam Burton wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Please do not accuse me of such a thing simply because I haven't
changed my opinion. You've held your ground as well, so I could just
as easily accuse you of being
A simple command line spell checker would be a cool demonstration of this!
Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
What about using something like '-' for dynamic calls instead of '.'?
That's absolutely useless. If I have to write anything different from
. I might as well write bloodyMaryBloodyMaryBloodyMary.
Andrei
You could even write 'noodles' but that
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The point of using . is not syntactic convenience as much as the
ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with algorithms
that use the standard notation.
What if the dot remained exactly like it is now and
On 2009-04-18 17:48:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 11:19:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I'm confused. Isn't it clear that at the moment we have the ability
to pass a function name as a
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:05:30 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I gave this a lot of thought, and I think here is a possible solution:
the main reason I'm hesitant on this idea is because of code like this:
class X
{
auto
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
What about using something like '-' for dynamic calls instead of '.'?
That's absolutely useless. If I have to write anything different from
. I might
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 17:48:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 11:19:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I'm confused. Isn't it clear that at the moment we have the
ability to pass
Hello Adam,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The point of using . is not syntactic convenience as much as the
ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with
algorithms that use the standard notation.
What if the dot remained exactly like it
Hello Michel,
On 2009-04-18 17:48:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 11:19:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
I'm confused. Isn't it clear that at the moment we have the
ability to pass a
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
