Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably alway
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably alway
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most
likely,
you're going
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
you're going to be passing it a lambda.
Edward Diener wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
you're going to be passing it a lambda.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:10 PM, grauzone wrote:
>
> Probably the same type as .ptr?
void*? That's just silly. Let's just throw all static typing out the window. :P
> And by the way, I find it really strange, that .funcptr results into an
> incorrectly typed function pointer, that basically has th
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Edward
Diener wrote:
What I imagine will happen in D is that when an updated delegate type allows
itself to be initialized with a function pointer, the vast majority of D
programmers will use delegate for all callables and the function p
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Edward
Diener wrote:
> What I imagine will happen in D is that when an updated delegate type allows
> itself to be initialized with a function pointer, the vast majority of D
> programmers will use delegate for all callables and the function pointer
> will remain sim
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
you're going to be passing it a lambda. However I agree that i
Edward Diener wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
you're going to be passing it a lambda. However I agree that it would
be very, very nice t
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> ...
>
> void foob(T: Ret function(Args), Ret, Args...)(T func)
> {
> pragma(msg, ParameterTupleOf!(T).stringof);
> static void wtf(ParameterTupleOf!(T) args) {}
> pragma(msg, ParameterTupleOf!(T).stringof);
> }
>
> void blah(int, ref float) {}
>
>
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
you're going to be passing it a lambda. However I agree that it would
be very, very nice to be able to make APIs
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> void foo(bool delegate() dg) {
>> dg();
>> }
>> foo({return true;});
>>
>
> Sure, when there's no parameters (...does that work in D1, or just D2?...),
> but even then, I still always end up going though a process like this when
> definin
"Jeremie Pelletier" wrote in message
news:h7m6nb$2k8...@digitalmars.com...
>
> The only valid syntax is up there,
Yea, but which one? ;)
> I almost only use delegates in D, since it allows functions pointers,
> delegates, closures and nested functions to be passed. Function pointers
> only a
"Jarrett Billingsley" wrote in message
news:mailman.30.1251909028.20261.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
>I'd really, really like to replace your entire module with this:
>
>Ret delegate(Args) toDg(T: Ret function(Args), Ret, Args...)(T func)
>{
>[snip]
>}
>
>But I can't. :C
Yea. But even then,
Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> Basically, any function that reads i may not be called before i is
> declared, nor in i's initialization. Of course, in reality, it depends on
> the control flow within the function. But that's holy grail stuff. So:
> conservatively.
Oh, you may also not take a deleg
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> It wouldn't even be that difficult. Basically if you treat
> forward-referenced nested functions as a sort of goto, the same rules
> should apply: a call to a nested function may not skip the
> initialization of any variables it depends on. When i's initializer is
> ev
"Jarrett Billingsley" wrote in message
news:mailman.32.1251920615.20261.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Don wrote:
>> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>>>
>>> Rainer Deyke wrote:
>>>
That can lead to subtle problems in the case of functions:
int i = f();
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Don wrote:
> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>>
>> Rainer Deyke wrote:
>>
I still find it silly that it was built that way. Seems to me you should
be able to forward-reference *any* symbol that has a value that can't
change over its lifetime. Functions, co
Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
Rainer Deyke wrote:
I still find it silly that it was built that way. Seems to me you should
be able to forward-reference *any* symbol that has a value that can't
change over its lifetime. Functions, const/immutable vars, typedefs,
classes, etc.
That can lead to sub
Rainer Deyke wrote:
>> I still find it silly that it was built that way. Seems to me you should
>> be able to forward-reference *any* symbol that has a value that can't
>> change over its lifetime. Functions, const/immutable vars, typedefs,
>> classes, etc.
>
> That can lead to subtle problems in
Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> I still find it silly that it was built that way. Seems to me you should be
> able to forward-reference *any* symbol that has a value that can't change
> over its lifetime. Functions, const/immutable vars, typedefs, classes, etc.
That can lead to subtle problems in th
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>> Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
>> you're going to be passing it a lambda. However I agree that it would
>> be very, very nice to be able to make APIs take just delega
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> "Jeremie Pelletier" wrote in message
> news:h7h5i1$5m...@digitalmars.com...
> >
> > While D is not the first place I see closures and nested functions, it is
> > the first language I come across that blends delegates, closures and
> > nested functions in a simple, eleg
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Daniel Keep wrote:
>
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
>> you're going to be passing it a lambda. However I agree that it would
>> be very, very nice to be able to make APIs take just delegates and
>
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
> you're going to be passing it a lambda. However I agree that it would
> be very, very nice to be able to make APIs take just delegates and
> allow functions to be implicitly cast to them. You can a
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Well repeat should probably always take a delegate since most likely,
you're going to be passing it a lambda. However I agree that it would
be very, very nice to be able to make APIs take just delegates and
allow functions to be implicitly cast to them. You can already
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Umm, yea. If you don't already know what I'm getting at with that, then...
> Quick! For each of these, valid or invalid?:
> // D
> void repeat(int n, void delegate(int i) dg)
> {
> foreach(int i; 0..n)
> d
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jeremie Pelletier" wrote in message
> news:h7h5i1$5m...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> While D is not the first place I see closures and nested functions, it is
>> the first language I come across that blends delegates, closures and
>> nested functions in a simple, elegant and
If the loop index "i" isn't necessary, you can use simpler code:
import std.stdio: writeln;
void repeat(TF)(int n, lazy TF callme) {
foreach (i; 0 .. n)
callme();
}
void main() {
repeat(5, writeln("hi"));
}
Bye,
bearophile
Nick Sabalausky:
> Quick! For each of these, valid or invalid?:
I may like this one:
import std.stdio: writeln;
import d.templates: IsCallable;
void repeat(TyCall)(int n, TyCall callme) if (IsCallable!TyCall) {
foreach (i; 0 .. n)
callme(i);
}
void main() {
repeat(5, (int i){ wr
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:35:05 +0200, Michiel Helvensteijn thusly wrote:
> language_fan wrote:
>
>>> I agree it would be better to allow forward references for nested
>>> functions, I just wished to point out that the current behavior is not
>>> a bug, it was built that way.
>>
>> That's great news a
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:42:09 -0400, Jeremie Pelletier thusly wrote:
> I agree with Walter here. While D is not the first place I see closures
> and nested functions, it is the first language I come across that blends
> delegates, closures and nested functions in a simple, elegant and
> intuitive mann
language_fan wrote:
>> I agree it would be better to allow forward references for nested
>> functions, I just wished to point out that the current behavior is not a
>> bug, it was built that way.
>
> That's great news actually. It might even mean that this might change
> some day.
I still find i
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:17:11 -0700, Walter Bright thusly wrote:
> I agree it would be better to allow forward references for nested
> functions, I just wished to point out that the current behavior is not a
> bug, it was built that way.
That's great news actually. It might even mean that this might
"Jeremie Pelletier" wrote in message
news:h7h5i1$5m...@digitalmars.com...
>
> While D is not the first place I see closures and nested functions, it is
> the first language I come across that blends delegates, closures and
> nested functions in a simple, elegant and intuitive manner.
>
I almos
Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
Another thread on it!
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9ga7e/c_lambdas_vs_apples_c_blocks/
Walter Bright wrote:
> I try to
[...]
rofl :-)
-manfred
Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2009-08-30 17:34:36 -0400, Walter Bright
> said:
>
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
>>
>
> It's
>>
> true that C doesn't have nested functions, but Apple's version of C, C++
> and Objective-C, starting with Snow L
On 2009-08-30 17:34:36 -0400, Walter Bright said:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
It's
true that C doesn't have nested functions, but Apple's version of C,
C++ and Objective-C, starting with Snow Leopard, has it. Well, it has
nested fu
Bill Baxter wrote:
Some of us read the NG via email, not a newsreader.
Thunderbird email has an option to view emails in a threaded form.
Bill Baxter wrote:
I don't think gmail can do that.
Anyway, pretty much Walter is the only one here who regularly writes
replies with absolutely no context, so it's not a huge problem.
I try to counterbalance the person(s) who quote a 90 line message and
add a single sentence at the end!
Tom S wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> language_fan wrote:
>>> This information is also taught in basic university level compiler
>>> courses.
>>
>> I bet only a tiny fraction of programmers have taken university
>> compiler classes. (Also, they were not covered in compiler classes I
>> took.) Co
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Walter
>> > Bright wrote:
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't mean to pull a Stewart, but please be sure to quote a bit of
>> > the post you
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Walter
>> > Bright wrote:
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't mean to pull a Stewart, but please be sure to quote a bit of
>> > the post you
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Walter
>> Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> I don't mean to pull a Stewart, but please be sure to quote a bit of
>> the post you're responding to. If you don't, it's
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Walter
> > Bright wrote:
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >
> > I don't mean to pull a Stewart, but please be sure to quote a bit of
> > the post you're responding to. If you don't, it's virtually impossible
> > to te
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:57:41PM -0700, Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Some of us read the NG via email, not a newsreader.
>
> My email client (mutt) can do threading on it too. You might want to check
> the settings on your mail reader and see if yo
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:57:41PM -0700, Bill Baxter wrote:
> Some of us read the NG via email, not a newsreader.
My email client (mutt) can do threading on it too. You might want to check
the settings on your mail reader and see if you have a threading option -
the necessary headers are in the m
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Walter
>> Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> I don't mean to pull a Stewart, but please be sure to quote a bit of
>> the post you're responding to. If you don't, it's
Walter Bright wrote:
language_fan wrote:
This information is also taught in basic university level compiler
courses.
I bet only a tiny fraction of programmers have taken university compiler
classes. (Also, they were not covered in compiler classes I took.)
Consider also that the Java JVM doe
I agree it would be better to allow forward references for nested
functions, I just wished to point out that the current behavior is not a
bug, it was built that way.
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Walter
Bright wrote:
Thanks!
I don't mean to pull a Stewart, but please be sure to quote a bit of
the post you're responding to. If you don't, it's virtually impossible
to tell who you're talking to when viewing the mailing lists.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Walter
Bright wrote:
> Thanks!
>
I don't mean to pull a Stewart, but please be sure to quote a bit of
the post you're responding to. If you don't, it's virtually impossible
to tell who you're talking to when viewing the mailing lists.
Walter Bright Wrote:
> language_fan wrote:
> > For what it's worth, they also seem somewhat buggy in D. Hopefully
> > writing the articles motivates fixing those issues :) For example one
> > can't call symbols before their declaration on non-global scope.
>
> That's actually not a bug. In func
language_fan wrote:
For what it's worth, they also seem somewhat buggy in D. Hopefully
writing the articles motivates fixing those issues :) For example one
can't call symbols before their declaration on non-global scope.
That's actually not a bug. In function scopes, you can't reference a
va
Walter Bright Wrote:
> language_fan wrote:
> > This seems more like an advertisement of D than practical new information
> > for compiler construction. Nesting functions is the basic feature of
> > functional languages. Moreover even procedural Algol based languages such
> > as Pascal have alwa
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:37:29 -0700, Walter Bright thusly wrote:
> language_fan wrote:
>> This seems more like an advertisement of D than practical new
>> information for compiler construction. Nesting functions is the basic
>> feature of functional languages. Moreover even procedural Algol based
>> l
language_fan wrote:
This seems more like an advertisement of D than practical new information
for compiler construction. Nesting functions is the basic feature of
functional languages. Moreover even procedural Algol based languages such
as Pascal have always supported them, too.
But not C, C+
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Am I missing something or did you repeat the "Let's rewrite abc and def
in C to illustrate the semantics" part at the end? Is there something
different I'm supposed to be reading?
Eh, you're right.
Thanks!
Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:34:36 -0700, Walter Bright thusly wrote:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/
how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
This seems more like an advertisement of D than practical new information
for compiler construction. Nesting functions is the basic feature of
fun
Walter Bright Wrote:
> That's very nice, could you post that on reddit?
Just did, I even changed "D" to "the D programming language" because I know you
like it for search engine referencing :)
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/c0cm3bk
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:34:36 -0400, Walter Bright
wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
Am I missing something or did you repeat the "Let's rewrite abc and def in
C to illustrate the semantics" part at the end? Is there something
di
Walter Bright Wrote:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
Have had a quick look through. You could have explained that D supports
closures and how the implementation supports it. Also looked in to C# before
complaining about it not semantically
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
>
> I need to try that out, its most likely a bug since 'in' means 'const scope'
> now.
>
> Check my second code bit, the delegate is declared as scope and it doesn't
> optimize, maybe the compiler only checks if the closure is being dere
That's very nice, could you post that on reddit?
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
> >
> > I really like the way nested functions and closures are done in D.
> > Especially b
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
>
> I really like the way nested functions and closures are done in D. Especially
> because they are the same thing as delegate
Walter Bright Wrote:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
I really like the way nested functions and closures are done in D. Especially
because they are the same thing as delegate and closures.
But speaking of closures, I did notice something th
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9fk6g/how_nested_functions_work_part_1/
72 matches
Mail list logo
