Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-12 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
On 2015-06-11 14:33, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: OK, I see the problem. When you type 'a.' then if you put up the list of members and UFCS functions available, then that list may be huge (and possibly filled with useless calls). That definitely is an issue. However, I think DCD should still supp

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-11 Thread krzaq via Digitalmars-d
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 12:33:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 6/10/15 8:52 AM, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 17:43:18 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 6/9/15 4:06 AM, Brian Schott wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Also, you s

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-11 Thread Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
On 6/10/15 8:52 AM, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 17:43:18 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 6/9/15 4:06 AM, Brian Schott wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Also, you say 5 seconds as if that's a short amount of time. If it takes an automat

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
On 06/10/2015 11:12 AM, ZombineDev wrote: Sorry, I couldn't resist to share this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND-TuW0KIgg Omg that's hilarious :)

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
On 6/10/15 8:48 AM, Joakim wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 15:12:47 UTC, ZombineDev wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:17:13 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https://boto

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 15:12:47 UTC, ZombineDev wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:17:13 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread ZombineDev via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:17:13 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/trip-report-c-standards-meeting-in-lenexa-may-2015/ So, here i

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 10/06/15 17:05, Kagamin wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 13:43:45 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 10/06/15 15:37, Kagamin wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 08:53:40 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 10/06/15 11:31, Kagamin wrote: Huh? If you have type's method diskIdx and a local varia

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 13:43:45 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 10/06/15 15:37, Kagamin wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 08:53:40 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 10/06/15 11:31, Kagamin wrote: Huh? If you have type's method diskIdx and a local variable diskIdx, and they are confusi

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 10/06/15 15:37, Kagamin wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 08:53:40 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 10/06/15 11:31, Kagamin wrote: Huh? If you have type's method diskIdx and a local variable diskIdx, and they are confusing, what it has to do with UFCS? auto diskIdx = data.diskIdx(); au

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread John Colvin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 17:43:18 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 6/9/15 4:06 AM, Brian Schott wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Also, you say 5 seconds as if that's a short amount of time. If it takes an automatic scanner 5 seconds, it means the amou

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 08:53:40 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 10/06/15 11:31, Kagamin wrote: Huh? If you have type's method diskIdx and a local variable diskIdx, and they are confusing, what it has to do with UFCS? auto diskIdx = data.diskIdx(); auto diskIdx1 = this.diskIdx; diskI

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 10/06/15 11:31, Kagamin wrote: Huh? If you have type's method diskIdx and a local variable diskIdx, and they are confusing, what it has to do with UFCS? auto diskIdx = data.diskIdx();

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 16:01:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Same as with @safe @nogc @nothrow @pure. No, these are attributes that change the function's type; constexpr does not. AIU, it still does something along those lines. If you don't have ctfeability expressed in function's c

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 06:34:13 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 10/06/15 09:14, deadalnix wrote: I do think you think at it the wrong way. people are not telling you it is bad code. You are telling us it is bad code (because you mention having problem that people using other style do n

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
On 2015-06-10 01:02, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: I could, but D would not check it? It could most likely be implemented with AST macros. -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-10 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 23:11:35 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: enum ct(alias a)=a; Thanks! I need to remember that enum means "compile-time constant" and not strictly enumeration. I guess one can use __ctfe to use a function at compile time and a lut a runtime too, e.g. "__ctfe ? sin(x) : lut_s

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 01:28:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I'm bemused by the argument that D is deficient because it doesn't implement a non-existent feature of C++. I think you are offended ;^]. I have not said that D is deficient regarding constexpr, I've suggested that I think D is m

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 10/06/15 09:14, deadalnix wrote: I do think you think at it the wrong way. people are not telling you it is bad code. You are telling us it is bad code (because you mention having problem that people using other style do not have). It is not a problem in C++. It is not a problem with no UFC

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 05:31:18 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 10/06/15 00:29, Walter Bright wrote: First off, D does not allow "shadowing" local variable declarations. Secondly, if you've got a lot of global variables, you've got a program design problem anyway. And lastly, naming every

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 10/06/15 00:29, Walter Bright wrote: First off, D does not allow "shadowing" local variable declarations. Secondly, if you've got a lot of global variables, you've got a program design problem anyway. And lastly, naming everything "diskIdx" is a problem of your own creation. The first one is c

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
On 06/09/2015 04:58 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote: I would have a considerably less problem with UFCS had it been limited only to explicit declaration. That's how it works in C#. That was actually my first introduction with extension methods, and then when UFCS was added to D, I used to be pre

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/2015 4:02 PM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 21:40:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: You've invented your own definition of constexpr; you would as productively tagged your C++ functions with /*simple*/. Kind of yes, but since C++ requires it I actu

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
On 06/09/2015 08:33 PM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 18:20:43 UTC, Tobias Müller wrote: And if you don't give that guarantee, well then it may just work. Or not. Or just stop working at some point in the future. It would be nice to have an operator

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
On 06/09/2015 06:27 PM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= " wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 15:49:07 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: On 06/09/2015 02:28 PM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= " wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 11:47:49 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:48:22 UTC, Marc Schüt

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 21:40:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: You've invented your own definition of constexpr; you would as productively tagged your C++ functions with /*simple*/. Kind of yes, but since C++ requires it I actually use it too. But in D, you can invent your own attribute @simple

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/2015 1:25 PM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 20:01:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/9/2015 4:25 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: When constexpr is part of the prototype you know that it isn't supposed to do substantial work.

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/2015 1:06 PM, Shachar Shemesh wrote: In practice, when your code gets big enough in a certain field, similar names are pretty much unavoidable. Admittedly, this is mostly around variable names. I lost count over the number of variables called "diskIdx" I have. While not exactly duplicate p

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 20:01:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/9/2015 4:25 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: When constexpr is part of the prototype you know that it isn't supposed to do substantial work. That doesn't follow. What doesn't follow? All my constexpr functi

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 09/06/15 22:39, Walter Bright wrote: I usually try to select identifiers that are easy to grep. So unless one has a penchant for naming functions f(), in practice it isn't a significant issue. The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theo

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/2015 4:47 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:48:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: static assert() is your friend in this case The point is that in D you don't need to express ctfe guarantee at all. It just works. Also, only the particular path the CTFE interpreter takes through

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/2015 4:25 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: When constexpr is part of the prototype you know that it isn't supposed to do substantial work. That doesn't follow. Without it, you risk the compiler spending a lot of time computing constants/tables that should be done at r

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/2015 2:58 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: Even though the compiler makes sure there's no ambiguity it might not always be so easy to find the definition. I usually try to select identifiers that are easy to grep. So unless one has a penchant for naming functions f(), in practice it isn't a s

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 18:20:43 UTC, Tobias Müller wrote: And if you don't give that guarantee, well then it may just work. Or not. Or just stop working at some point in the future. It would be nice to have an operator that forces CTFE and inlining. @ct( this_is_ctfe() ) @inline( this_

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Tobias Müller via Digitalmars-d
"Kagamin" wrote: > On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:48:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: >> static assert() is your friend in this case > > The point is that in D you don't need to express ctfe guarantee at all. It > just works. In other words you have no guarantee. If you want the guarantee you have to

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/15 4:06 AM, Brian Schott wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Also, you say 5 seconds as if that's a short amount of time. If it takes an automatic scanner 5 seconds, it means the amount of coverage it needs to perform is huge. If anybody was wondering

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 08:06:52 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Also, you say 5 seconds as if that's a short amount of time. If it takes an automatic scanner 5 seconds, it means the amount of coverage it needs to perform is huge. If

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 15:06:13 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Well, if you have full encapsulation, then you don't have extension methods and consequently don't have this issue. Well, you can, because you don't access object internals, but the point was exactly that extension methods can make progra

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Tobias Müller via Digitalmars-d
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 6/9/15 12:58 AM, Kagamin wrote: >> Same as with @safe @nogc @nothrow @pure. > > No, these are attributes that change the function's type; constexpr does not. Why is that better?

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 15:49:07 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: On 06/09/2015 02:28 PM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= " wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 11:47:49 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:48:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: static assert() is your friend in this case The point

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/15 12:58 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 22:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/8/15 1:25 PM, ponce wrote: C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time code looking like runtime code. But I

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
On 06/09/2015 02:28 PM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= " wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 11:47:49 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:48:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: static assert() is your friend in this case The point is that in D you don't need to express ctfe guarantee at al

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 14:05:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: One of the arguments for having separate declarations and definitions in C++ is that it provides better encapsulation (which C++ breaks for templates and inlined methods). If you have full encapsulation you know that the decla

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 11:39:49 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Not sure how physical layout of source code affects understanding of "libraryobject.print()". One of the arguments for having separate declarations and definitions in C++ is that it provides better encapsulation (which C++ breaks for tem

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Wyatt via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:27:26 UTC, Joakim wrote: stuck with grep for C Eww. Have you tried cscope? -Wyatt

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Manu via Digitalmars-d
On 9 June 2015 at 16:54, Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 08/06/15 22:24, Walter Bright wrote: > >> "Unified call syntax. This proposal, by Bjarne, seeks to unify the >> member (x.f(y)) and non-member (f(x, y)) call syntaxes by allowing >> functions of either kind to be invoked by syn

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 12:28:04 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: Huh? As I understood you, you asked for a guarantee that a function is CTFEable, in order to "not break other people's code". I mean http://forum.dlang.org/post/ml54jr$107j$1...@digitalmars.com

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 11:47:49 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:48:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: static assert() is your friend in this case The point is that in D you don't need to express ctfe guarantee at all. It just works. Huh? As I understood you, you asked for a gu

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:48:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: static assert() is your friend in this case The point is that in D you don't need to express ctfe guarantee at all. It just works.

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 09:06:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: but a problem for structural/duck-like typing when you scale up. Not a problem of cognitive complexity, though. On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:16:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: When reading code I don't want to wonder if

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 10:48:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: static assert() is your friend in this case. See also the related problem of guaranteeing that a template is When constexpr is part of the prototype you know that it isn't supposed to do substantial work. Without it, you risk the co

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:58:04 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 22:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/8/15 1:25 PM, ponce wrote: C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time code looking li

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 09:33:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:42 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Ambiguity over location of definition is something that promotes bugs. D's anti-hijacking lookup rules pretty much blunt this sort of problem. It does not prevent programmers from writ

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 08:58:19 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: but: @property void func( ref A a, int b ) ... should work. Same goes for dropping the () to zero arguments function calls. Once that needs to be a conscious decision by the programmer, my problems with UFCS are greatly reduced (

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 08:40:21 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: But that's just it. With UFCS, the function no longer needs to be in the same module as the class/struct to which it is referring. In fact, that is the whole point. What you complain about again? C never had modules or whatever s

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
On 2015-06-09 11:33, Walter Bright wrote: D's anti-hijacking lookup rules pretty much blunt this sort of problem. Even though the compiler makes sure there's no ambiguity it might not always be so easy to find the definition. -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/9/2015 12:42 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Ambiguity over location of definition is something that promotes bugs. D's anti-hijacking lookup rules pretty much blunt this sort of problem.

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread weaselcat via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 09:16:40 UTC, weaselcat wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 08:57:58 UTC, Chris wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:48:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:24:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/8/2015 11:17 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules ha

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread weaselcat via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 08:57:58 UTC, Chris wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:48:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:24:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/8/2015 11:17 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't b

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 08:33:04 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Extension methods are conceptually the type's methods. The type's interface is a conceptual thing, I don't think it has anything to do with physical layout of source code. This is a tricky issue. If you have structural typing (which Ada-

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 09/06/15 11:35, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= " wrote: I agree, I have conventions in my C++ code where member functions and free functions shouldn't mix. But given C++ templates lack of type safety, I'm not surprised that BS pushes it. It also does not solve "std::begin" issues be

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Chris via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:48:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:24:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/8/2015 11:17 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 09/06/15 10:21, Paulo Pinto wrote: It is no different than extension methods in .NET, Ceylon, Kotlin, multi-methods in CLOS or implicits in Scala. I never could understand that line of reasoning: Argument: So and so is bad bec

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 09/06/15 11:17, Kagamin wrote: Not sure what you compare it to. Even finding declaration was never an easy job in C, and definition can be anywhere in the source tree. In D symbols are at least tied to modules, so you can look only in the respective module, this never worked for C though. B

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 06:54:39 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 08/06/15 22:24, Walter Bright wrote: "Unified call syntax. This proposal, by Bjarne, seeks to unify the member (x.f(y)) and non-member (f(x, y)) call syntaxes by allowing functions of either kind to be invoked by syntax of eith

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Please see my answer to Joakim. Also, you say 5 seconds as if that's a short amount of time. If it takes an automatic scanner 5 seconds, it means the amount of coverage it needs to perform is huge. Probably a tooling issue, for m

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:59:41 UTC, weaselcat wrote: simple solution: just make everything a template, and alias empty-templated functions ;) also, AFAIK in 2.068 auto return functions are getting attribute inference. Templates don't help in meeting CTFE requirements.

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:42:40 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Ambiguity over location of definition is something that promotes bugs. The technical problem of finding the definition is the least important aspect of the problem. I don't understand the problem then: you're saying you have no p

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:42:40 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: I use DCD, and *for the most part* it does a reasonable job of finding the definition. It is not, however, something that excuses a language feature that makes life more difficult. Ambiguity over location of definition is somethin

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 08:03:18 UTC, weaselcat wrote: what would need to be done to get dscanner fit to be part of the standard D tool chain? We're starting with dfmt and dfix.

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:27:26 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 06:54:39 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 08/06/15 22:24, Walter Bright wrote: "Unified call syntax. This proposal, by Bjarne, seeks to unify the member (x.f(y)) and non-member (f(x, y)) call syntaxes by allowing

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:49:24 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Also, you say 5 seconds as if that's a short amount of time. If it takes an automatic scanner 5 seconds, it means the amount of coverage it needs to perform is huge. If anybody was wondering why DCD doesn't support UFCS, this is t

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread weaselcat via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:27:26 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 06:54:39 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 08/06/15 22:24, Walter Bright wrote: "Unified call syntax. This proposal, by Bjarne, seeks to unify the member (x.f(y)) and non-member (f(x, y)) call syntaxes by allowing

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 22:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/8/15 1:25 PM, ponce wrote: C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time code looking like runtime code. But I never had the pleasure to use it.

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
On 06/09/2015 08:54 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote: It is one of the most confusing aspects of D. It makes it close to impossible to locate the definition for a function used. "close to impossible"? :o) If you can find a.foo() and foo(a) without UFCS, then you can find them with UFCS.

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread weaselcat via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 07:58:04 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 22:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/8/15 1:25 PM, ponce wrote: C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time code looking li

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 09/06/15 10:21, Paulo Pinto wrote: It is no different than extension methods in .NET, Ceylon, Kotlin, multi-methods in CLOS or implicits in Scala. I never could understand that line of reasoning: Argument: So and so is bad because A Answer: X, Y, and Z also do so and so How is the answer cl

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 09/06/15 10:27, Joakim wrote: Perhaps Dscanner's declaration finder (the -d flag) or DCD would make your life easier. I use Dscanner all the time and miss it when I'm stuck with grep for C nowadays: https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Dscanner https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DCD I use DCD, and

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 06:54:39 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 08/06/15 22:24, Walter Bright wrote: "Unified call syntax. This proposal, by Bjarne, seeks to unify the member (x.f(y)) and non-member (f(x, y)) call syntaxes by allowing functions of either kind to be invoked by syntax of eith

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-09 Thread Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 06:54:39 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 08/06/15 22:24, Walter Bright wrote: "Unified call syntax. This proposal, by Bjarne, seeks to unify the member (x.f(y)) and non-member (f(x, y)) call syntaxes by allowing functions of either kind to be invoked by syntax of eith

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d
On 08/06/15 22:24, Walter Bright wrote: "Unified call syntax. This proposal, by Bjarne, seeks to unify the member (x.f(y)) and non-member (f(x, y)) call syntaxes by allowing functions of either kind to be invoked by syntax of either kind." Dear god, I hope this doesn't pass. It is one of the m

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread ponce via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 22:17:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/8/15 12:48 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote: I see a problem that having those features in C++ will reduce the desire from companies to adopt D. At very least they should acknowledge all of you guys for the ideas. As I said at D

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/8/2015 8:52 PM, Joakim wrote: They could do something like D when it jumped to 2.0, except with better migration paths. With some careful planning and automated source conversion tools nowadays, it doesn't have to be that bad. The idea is you keep the C++ knowledge that is accumulated by a

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:47:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: That is why Microsoft is going forward with WinRT. It is nice that they're updating the APIs, but I heard that a lot of it is just wrappers around old ones. The bigger issue is that Windows 7 and 8 (haven't tried the preview builds f

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
On 6/8/15 2:43 PM, Tobias Müller wrote: "ponce" wrote: C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time code looking like runtime code. But I never had the pleasure to use it. constexpr functions are just as well runti

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
On 6/8/15 1:25 PM, ponce wrote: C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time code looking like runtime code. But I never had the pleasure to use it. Yeah, it's sadly quite björked. Scott Meyers and I looked at the fe

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
On 6/8/15 12:48 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote: I see a problem that having those features in C++ will reduce the desire from companies to adopt D. At very least they should acknowledge all of you guys for the ideas. As I said at DConf, D is the N word of C++. It's actually comical to watch the lengt

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Tobias Müller via Digitalmars-d
"ponce" wrote: > C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked > constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time code looking > like runtime code. But I never had the pleasure to use it. constexpr functions are just as well runtime functions. They are only annotated

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
On 06/08/2015 03:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:17:03 UTC, Joakim wrote: I wonder when they will realize that a clean break is necessary. 36 years is far too long for a language to keep building on top of the past. Intel has been hurt by this with x86 recently, pr

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread ponce via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:57:34 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: And they seem to almost have CTFE(!) From wiki on C++14: C++11 introduced the concept of a constexpr-declared function; a function which could be executed at compile time. Their return values could be consumed by operations that

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:48:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I see a problem that having those features in C++ will reduce the desire from companies to adopt D. There is certainly some truth to that, but I think that it's pretty clear that in most cases, they can't do as good a job of it as D,

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d
On 08-Jun-2015 22:24, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/8/2015 11:17 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/trip-report-c-standards-meeting-in-lene

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:17:03 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:57:17 UTC, ponce wrote: I can't imagine the weird look-up rules that will be made for a translation unit both using modules and traditional headers. At the end of the day, another set of rules for C++ers to reme

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:24:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/8/2015 11:17 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/trip-report-c-standa

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:17:03 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:57:17 UTC, ponce wrote: I can't imagine the weird look-up rules that will be made for a translation unit both using modules and traditional headers. At the end of the day, another set of rules for C++ers to reme

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
On 6/8/2015 11:17 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/trip-report-c-standards-meeting-in-lenexa-may-2015/ So, here is another feature t

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:57:17 UTC, ponce wrote: I can't imagine the weird look-up rules that will be made for a translation unit both using modules and traditional headers. At the end of the day, another set of rules for C++ers to remembers. I wonder when they will realize that a clean b

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread ponce via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:17:13 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/trip-report-c-standards-meeting-in-lenexa-may-2015/ So, here i

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:24:13 + Dennis Ritchie via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:17:13 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: > > Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical > > Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into > > ANSI C++ 17. > > > > https://bot

Re: [OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

2015-06-08 Thread Dennis Ritchie via Digitalmars-d
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 18:17:13 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical Specification, and won't be ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17. https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/trip-report-c-standards-meeting-in-lenexa-may-2015/ So, here i

  1   2   >