Walter Bright, el 17 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:
> dsimcha wrote:
> >Furthermore, I think that less verbosity encourages good practices. I've
> >gotten
> >into the habit of declaring all my stack variables immutable when writing a
> >function, unless I really need them to be mutable. Thi
Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
> Walter Bright, el 17 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:
> > dsimcha wrote:
> > >Furthermore, I think that less verbosity encourages good practices. I've
> > >gotten
> > >into the habit of declaring all my stack variables immutable when writing a
> > >function, unless
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Do you remember when people asked for default immutability? I do :)
Yes, but it would break every other line of code already written in D.
I like the idea of making x := y an alias for immutable x = y (or even
enum x = y). That would make this style much more attract
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Do you remember when people asked for default immutability? I do :)
> Yes, but it would break every other line of code already written in D.
> > I like the idea of making x := y an alias for immutable
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:35:17 -0500, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Do you remember when people asked for default immutability? I do :)
Yes, but it would break every other line of code already written in D.
> I like t
Walter Bright:
> Yes, but it would break every other line of code already written in D.<
Is this a lot of D2 code? How much time does it need?
Bye,
bearophile
bearophile, el 18 de enero a las 17:07 me escribiste:
> Walter Bright:
> > Yes, but it would break every other line of code already written in D.<
>
> Is this a lot of D2 code? How much time does it need?
I think he includes D1 code, which would be harder to port to D2. Makes
sense to me, that's
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:52:16AM -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> I think he includes D1 code, which would be harder to port to D2. Makes
> sense to me, that's why I think introducing the := operator as an alias to
> immutable/const would be a good compromise. It makes extremely easy to use
> im
Adam D. Ruppe, el 19 de enero a las 10:56 me escribiste:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:52:16AM -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > I think he includes D1 code, which would be harder to port to D2. Makes
> > sense to me, that's why I think introducing the := operator as an alias to
> > immutable/cons
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:44:29PM -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> I don't understand, you are vulnerable to that kind of bugs now too:
>
> const receiver = 1;
>
> const reciever = 2; // meant to rebind, but spelling error goes unnoticed by
> compiler
Right, but it is more of a conscious effo
On 01/19/2010 04:56 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:52:16AM -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I think he includes D1 code, which would be harder to port to D2. Makes
sense to me, that's why I think introducing the := operator as an alias to
immutable/const would be a good compr
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:51:11PM +0100, Pelle Månsson wrote:
> Python, and most other dynamic languages, have that problem. They are
> not suffering because of it.
Meh, that's in the eye of the beholder.
> Also, const cannot be rebound.
Ah, so it can't. I figured they could, since strings can
Adam D. Ruppe, el 19 de enero a las 14:12 me escribiste:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:44:29PM -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > I don't understand, you are vulnerable to that kind of bugs now too:
> >
> > const receiver = 1;
> >
> > const reciever = 2; // meant to rebind, but spelling error goe
13 matches
Mail list logo
