On 12/16/2009 2:36 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
__ indicates proprietary language extension
__ we don't want you using this much (__gshared)
__ this way we aren't adding a keyword to the standard namespace (__traits)
At least those have been the reasons I've heard. This makes __ absolutely
On Dec 16, 09 07:21, Jesse Phillips wrote:
lws Wrote:
On 2009-11-19 15:46:57 -0800, Bill Baxterwbax...@gmail.com said:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I am thinking that representing operators by their exact token
representation
KennyTM~ Wrote:
On Dec 16, 09 07:21, Jesse Phillips wrote:
http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/rationale.html
However it does have this nice little gem:
__ keywords should indicate a proprietary language extension, not a basic
part of the language.
Which makes you wonder why D has
On 15/12/09 23:21, Jesse Phillips wrote:
There is a page for the rational which I thought gave the OP's explination:
http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/rationale.html
However it does have this nice little gem:
__ keywords should indicate a proprietary language extension, not a basic part of
the
lws Wrote:
On 2009-11-19 15:46:57 -0800, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com said:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I am thinking that representing operators by their exact token
representation is a principled approach because it
On 2009-11-19 15:46:57 -0800, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com said:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I am thinking that representing operators by their exact token
representation is a principled approach because it allows for unambiguous
On 2009-11-20 02:18:03 -0800, Pelle Månsson pelle.mans...@gmail.com said:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
grauzone wrote:
What's with opSomethingAssign (or expr1[expr2] @= expr3 in
Simen kjaeraas wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:02:21 +0100, Ellery Newcomer
ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu wrote:
On 12/07/2009 08:33 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
bearophile wrote:
snip
In Python you usually just omit the value:
a[:5] === a[0 .. 5]
a[5:] === a[5 .. $]
Which doesn't accommodate
Stewart Gordon:
But in D, you can use a negative index/key in an AA or custom array type.
This is natural easy to do in Python too.
And is there any equivalent in Python to a[$/2] or anything fancy like that?
You have to do it in explicit way:
a[len(a) / 2]
Or today better (// is the
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:02:21 +0100, Ellery Newcomer
ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu wrote:
On 12/07/2009 08:33 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
bearophile wrote:
snip
In Python you usually just omit the value:
a[:5] === a[0 .. 5]
a[5:] === a[5 .. $]
Which doesn't accommodate anything equivalent to
bearophile wrote:
snip
In Python you usually just omit the value:
a[:5] === a[0 .. 5]
a[5:] === a[5 .. $]
Which doesn't accommodate anything equivalent to a[$-4 .. $-2].
Or you can also use None, this can useful because you can put None
inside a variable, etc (while in D you can't put $
On 12/07/2009 08:33 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
bearophile wrote:
snip
In Python you usually just omit the value:
a[:5] === a[0 .. 5]
a[5:] === a[5 .. $]
Which doesn't accommodate anything equivalent to a[$-4 .. $-2].
you mean this?
a[-4:-2]
Or you can also use None, this can useful
Stewart Gordon:
Which doesn't accommodate anything equivalent to a[$-4 .. $-2].
In Python:
a = abcdefgh
a[-4 : -2]
'ef'
Or you can also use None, this can useful because you can put None
inside a variable, etc (while in D you can't put $ inside a variable
to represent the end of that
Stewart Gordon:
Only for built-in linear arrays. Half the point is: What if somebody
creates a type for which the lower bound is something different?
This can be useful. For example an array with indices in a .. z+1 :-)
maybe we need some symbol like ^ to denote the lower
bound, and
Denis Koroskin wrote:
snip
Lower bound is always 0 in D, unlike VB where is can take an arbitrary
value. As such, there is no need for opLowerBound in D.
Only for built-in linear arrays. Half the point is: What if somebody
creates a type for which the lower bound is something different?
aarti_pl wrote:
Don pisze:
Additionally in my framework you can pass around parts of SQL e.g. :
WhereExpression exp = Where(More(visitcards.id, 100));
You basically *CAN NOT* do it when just using strings.
Of course you can define a where clause using strings.
(I'm not sure when you'd
Don wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
Don pisze:
Additionally in my framework you can pass around parts of SQL e.g. :
WhereExpression exp = Where(More(visitcards.id, 100));
You basically *CAN NOT* do it when just using strings.
Of course you can define a where clause using strings.
Even today,
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:46:39 +0300, Travis Boucher
boucher.tra...@gmail.com wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:00:18 +0300, Gerrit Wichert g...@green-stores.de
wrote:
how about opLimit ?
I recall that Visual Basic has UBound function that returns upper
bound of a
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:42:53 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Don wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
Don pisze:
Additionally in my framework you can pass around parts of SQL e.g. :
WhereExpression exp = Where(More(visitcards.id, 100));
You basically *CAN NOT* do it when just using strings.
Of
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:42:53 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Don wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
Don pisze:
Additionally in my framework you can pass around parts of SQL e.g. :
WhereExpression exp = Where(More(visitcards.id, 100));
You basically *CAN NOT* do it when just
Denis Koroskin wrote:
I recall that Visual Basic has UBound function that returns upper
bound of a multi-dimensional array:
Dim a(100, 5, 4) As Byte
UBound(a, 1) - 100
UBound(a, 2) - 5
UBound(a, 3) - 4
Works for single-dimensional arrays, too:
Dim b(8) As Byte
UBound(b) - 8
I brought a
On 11/25/2009 10:46 AM, Don wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
I recall that Visual Basic has UBound function that returns upper
bound of a multi-dimensional array:
Dim a(100, 5, 4) As Byte
UBound(a, 1) - 100
UBound(a, 2) - 5
UBound(a, 3) - 4
Works for single-dimensional arrays, too:
Dim b(8) As Byte
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:11:48 +0300, Ellery Newcomer
ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu wrote:
On 11/25/2009 10:46 AM, Don wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
I recall that Visual Basic has UBound function that returns upper
bound of a multi-dimensional array:
Dim a(100, 5, 4) As Byte
UBound(a, 1) - 100
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:11:48 +0300, Ellery Newcomer
ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu wrote:
On 11/25/2009 10:46 AM, Don wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
I recall that Visual Basic has UBound function that returns upper
bound of a multi-dimensional array:
Dim a(100, 5, 4) As Byte
UBound(a, 1) - 100
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:11:48 +0300, Ellery Newcomer
ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu wrote:
On 11/25/2009 10:46 AM, Don wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
I recall that Visual Basic has UBound function that returns upper
bound of a multi-dimensional array:
Dim a(100, 5, 4) As Byte
On 11/25/2009 01:40 PM, Denis Koroskin wrote:
IIRC lower bound is 1 by default in VB and therefore b(0) is illegal.
Nope.
Dim b(8) as String
is equivalent to
Dim b(0 to 8) as String
and therefore b(0) is very legal.
how about opLimit ?
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:00:18 +0300, Gerrit Wichert g...@green-stores.de
wrote:
how about opLimit ?
I recall that Visual Basic has UBound function that returns upper bound of
a multi-dimensional array:
Dim a(100, 5, 4) As Byte
UBound(a, 1) - 100
UBound(a, 2) - 5
UBound(a, 3) - 4
Works
aarti_pl wrote:
Lutger pisze:
yigal chripun wrote:
aarti_pl Wrote:
There's nothing more hideous than all those frameworks in Java/C++ that
try to re-enginer SQL into functions, templates, LINQ, whatever. SQL
*is*
a perfectly designed language for its purpose and it doesn't need to be
Don pisze:
Additionally in my framework you can pass around parts of SQL e.g. :
WhereExpression exp = Where(More(visitcards.id, 100));
You basically *CAN NOT* do it when just using strings.
Of course you can define a where clause using strings.
(I'm not sure when you'd want to, though. I
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:00:18 +0300, Gerrit Wichert g...@green-stores.de
wrote:
how about opLimit ?
I recall that Visual Basic has UBound function that returns upper bound
of a multi-dimensional array:
Dim a(100, 5, 4) As Byte
UBound(a, 1) - 100
UBound(a, 2) - 5
aarti_pl Wrote:
Walter Bright pisze:
Don wrote:
There's not many sensible operators anyway. opPow is the only missing
one that's present in many other general-purpose languages. The only
other ones I think are remotely interesting are dot and cross product.
Yup.
Anything
yigal chripun wrote:
aarti_pl Wrote:
Walter Bright pisze:
Don wrote:
There's not many sensible operators anyway. opPow is the only missing
one that's present in many other general-purpose languages. The only
other ones I think are remotely interesting are dot and cross product.
Yup.
Don wrote:
yigal chripun wrote:
aarti_pl Wrote:
Walter Bright pisze:
Don wrote:
There's not many sensible operators anyway. opPow is the only
missing one that's present in many other general-purpose languages.
The only other ones I think are remotely interesting are dot and
cross product.
Chad J wrote:
Don wrote:
yigal chripun wrote:
aarti_pl Wrote:
Walter Bright pisze:
Don wrote:
There's not many sensible operators anyway. opPow is the only
missing one that's present in many other general-purpose languages.
The only other ones I think are remotely interesting are dot and
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:54:04 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
The hook doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it raises a lot of issues
with the
implementation details. These are things I could figure out given
plenty of time.
I'd like weak refs, too. However, I don't think this makes
Don Wrote:
Chad J wrote:
Don wrote:
I quite agree. What we can do already is:
auto statement = db.execute!(`select $a from table where $b 100 $c
Like A*`)(visitcars.name,visitcars.id, visitcars.surname);
which I personally like much better than the proposed goal:
It would be
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
This sounds like a job for better mixin syntax.
.
So let template#(args) be equivalent to mixin(template!(args)).
Then you can do
auto statement = db.execute#(`select $visitcars.name from table where
$visitcars.id 100
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:38:32 -0500, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
This sounds like a job for better mixin syntax.
.
So let template#(args) be equivalent to mixin(template!(args)).
Then you can do
auto statement =
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
This sounds like a job for better mixin syntax.
.
So let template#(args) be equivalent to mixin(template!(args)).
Then you can do
auto statement = db.execute#(`select $visitcars.name from table where
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
This sounds like a job for better mixin syntax.
.
So let template#(args) be equivalent to mixin(template!(args)).
Then you can do
auto statement = db.execute#(`select $visitcars.name
yigal chripun wrote:
aarti_pl Wrote:
...
There's nothing more hideous than all those frameworks in Java/C++ that
try to re-enginer SQL into functions, templates, LINQ, whatever. SQL *is*
a perfectly designed language for its purpose and it doesn't need to be
redisnged! The only problem
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:38:32 -0500, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
This sounds like a job for better mixin syntax.
.
So let template#(args) be
Lutger pisze:
yigal chripun wrote:
aarti_pl Wrote:
There's nothing more hideous than all those frameworks in Java/C++ that
try to re-enginer SQL into functions, templates, LINQ, whatever. SQL *is*
a perfectly designed language for its purpose and it doesn't need to be
redisnged! The
yigal chripun pisze:
aarti_pl Wrote:
Walter Bright pisze:
Don wrote:
There's not many sensible operators anyway. opPow is the only missing
one that's present in many other general-purpose languages. The only
other ones I think are remotely interesting are dot and cross product.
Yup.
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:49:01 -0500, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:38:32 -0500, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:49:01 -0500, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:38:32 -0500, Bill Baxter
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:22:35 -0500, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:49:01 -0500, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think Walter had intended template mixins to take the place of
Lars T. Kyllingstad pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote:
How about
auto template MixMeInAutomatically(T) { ... }
void main()
{
MixMeInAutomatically!int;
...
}
Would this be ambiguous? It would be using auto for something completely
new, but it would at
Justin Johansson wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
snip
I agree. opDollar is not particularly fitting to D language operator
concept. opLength/opSize would fit better.
snip
Why I believe opLength and opSize are also wrong names:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
If we use @safe and @trusted to indicate unequivocally no escape,
then there is no analysis to be done - the hard part of the analysis
has already been done manually by the user.
The problem then becomes:
T[]
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:06:53 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
snip
Why I believe opLength and opSize are also wrong names:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/Re_opDollar_12939.html
Stewart Gordon wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:06:53 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
snip
Why I believe opLength and opSize are also wrong names:
Justin Johansson wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:06:53 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
snip
Why I believe opLength and opSize are also wrong names:
Chad J wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Also, you should fix the auto-flattening of tuples before it's too
late. I think everyone agrees that auto-flattening is a bad idea, and
that tuples should be nestable. Flattening can be done manually with
an unary operator.
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:21:10 -0500, aarti_pl aa...@interia.pl wrote:
[snip]
Problem with current approach is that I have to define SQL in D/Java in
following way:
auto statement = Select(visitcars.name).Where(And(More(visitcards.id,
100), Like(visitcards.surname, A*)));
Please look at
aarti_pl wrote:
bearophile pisze:
aarti_pl:
I think that proposed names exactly reflect the meaning. So I would
say it is perfectly consistent with D convention.
Dollars are money, but opDollar is not a member function that returns
the price of a struct. So I don't agree with you, or I
Rainer Deyke wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I am thinking that representing operators by their exact token
representation is a principled approach because it allows for
unambiguous mapping, testing with if and static if, and also allows
saving source code by using only one string mixin. It
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
grauzone wrote:
What's with opSomethingAssign (or expr1[expr2] @= expr3 in general)?
opBinary doesn't seem to solve any of those.
opBinary does solve
Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
bearophile pisze:
aarti_pl:
I think that proposed names exactly reflect the meaning. So I would
say it is perfectly consistent with D convention.
Dollars are money, but opDollar is not a member function that returns
the price of a struct. So
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu
(seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
Walter Bright wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
I know that quite a few people here doesn't like to allow users to
define their own operators, because it might obfuscate code. But it
doesn't have to be like this. Someone here already mentioned here that
it is not real problem for programs in C++. Good
Don:
Unfortunately $ is not necessarily the length, nor the size. It might
not even be an arithmetic type.
Is opEnd a fitter name?
Bye,
bearophile
Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
bearophile pisze:
aarti_pl:
I think that proposed names exactly reflect the meaning. So I would
say it is perfectly consistent with D convention.
Dollars are money, but opDollar is not a member function that
returns the
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* Encode operators by compile-time strings. For example, instead of the
plethora of opAdd, opMul, ..., we'd have this:
T opBinary(string op)(T rhs) { ... }
The string is +, *, etc. We need to design what happens with
read-modify-write operators like += (should they
Don wrote:
There's not many sensible operators anyway. opPow is the only missing
one that's present in many other general-purpose languages. The only
other ones I think are remotely interesting are dot and cross product.
Yup.
Anything beyond that, you generally want a full DSL, probably with
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* Encode operators by compile-time strings. For example, instead of
the plethora of opAdd, opMul, ..., we'd have this:
T opBinary(string op)(T rhs) { ... }
The string is +, *, etc. We need to design what happens with
read-modify-write
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Kyle wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
6. There must be many things I forgot to mention, or that cause grief to
many of us. Please add to/comment on this list.
Uniform function call syntax.
It's in the book. I'm adding this message as a reminder to add a
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
We're entering the finale of D2 and I want to keep a short list of
things that must be done and integrated in the release. It is clearly
understood by all of us that there are many things that could and
probably should be done.
What do you mean by finale, exactly?
Stewart Gordon wrote:
aarti_pl wrote:
snip
I agree. opDollar is not particularly fitting to D language operator
concept. opLength/opSize would fit better.
snip
Why I believe opLength and opSize are also wrong names:
Justin Johansson wrote:
6. There must be many things I forgot to mention, or that cause grief
to many of us. Please add to/comment on this list.
Sorry I'm not familiar with any prior discussion on this or even where
it's at (basically I'm in D1 world), but what about
constructors for
Gzp wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
* Encode operators by compile-time strings. For example, instead of
the plethora of opAdd, opMul, ..., we'd have this:
T opBinary(string op)(T rhs) { ... }
The string is +, *, etc.
Can you show an example of defining an operator, like a
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:35:18 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The rewrite is done long after lexing, so no low-level problems there.
Oh, I thought it would let you introduce new operators. But it's only
about the existing ones.
I find the idea to
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
6. There must be many things I forgot to mention, or that cause grief
to many of us. Please add to/comment on this list.
Sorry I'm not familiar with any prior discussion on this or even where
it's at (basically I'm in D1 world), but what
retard r...@tard.com.invalid wrote:
Does the new system allow overriding only some binary operations and not
all of them at once?
struct S {
S opBinary( string op )( S rhs ) if ( op == + ) {
// Do stuff
}
}
I thought generic member functions were non-virtual?
Andrei
Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:33:07 +0100, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
retard r...@tard.com.invalid wrote:
Does the new system allow overriding only some binary operations and
not all of them at once?
struct S {
S opBinary( string op )( S rhs ) if ( op == + ) {
// Do stuff
}
}
I
Yes; opBinary was just given as an example. Unary operators look like this:
T opUnary(string op)();
(And maybe trinary operators ?: ) :)
Can they still be overloaded ? Will they have a similar syntax ? If so
what about the e++ and ++e operators? How they are distinct ? Or is
the latter
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
We're entering the finale of D2 and I want to keep a short list of
things that must be done and integrated in the release. It is clearly
understood by all of us that there are many things that could and
probably should be done.
1. Currently Walter and Don are
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Also, you should fix the auto-flattening of tuples before it's too
late. I think everyone agrees that auto-flattening is a bad idea, and
that tuples should be nestable. Flattening can be done manually with
an unary operator.
(Introducing sane
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* Encode operators by compile-time strings. For example, instead of the
plethora of opAdd, opMul, ..., we'd have this:
T opBinary(string op)(T rhs) { ... }
The string is +, *, etc. We need to design what happens with
read-modify-write operators like += (should
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
...
Any more thoughts, please let them known. ...
Andrei
I like what I'm reading. Pretty clever!
I imagine it'd be convenient to easily distinguish between pure binary
operators and opAssign binary operators. I can easily envision myself
marking operator
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Static function parameters
Walter tried to implement them and ran into a number of odd semantic issues.
I'd like to know more about those semantic issues, I am curious.
Bye,
bearophile
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:14:08 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
We're entering the finale of D2 and I want to keep a short list of
things that must be done and integrated in the release. It is clearly
understood by all of us that there are many things that
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Yes; opBinary was just given as an example. Unary operators look like this:
T opUnary(string op)();
Why not do
T op(string op)(); // unary
T op(string op)(T rhs); // binary
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:14:08 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
We're entering the finale of D2 and I want to keep a short list of
things that must be done and integrated in the release. It is
== Quote from Chad J (chadj...@__spam.is.bad__gmail.com)'s article
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Also, you should fix the auto-flattening of tuples before it's too
late. I think everyone agrees that auto-flattening is a bad idea, and
that tuples should be nestable.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Any more thoughts, please let them known. Again, this is the ideal time
to contribute. But meh, it's a hack is difficult to discuss.
Well that's just like as if Bjarne Stroustrup would ask you: What would
you have done in my place? This looked like the right thing
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Yes, it will be because the book has a few failing unittests. In fact, I
was hoping I could talk you or David into doing it :o).
Andrei
Unfortunately, I've come to hate the MRU idea because it would fail miserably
for
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
3. It was mentioned in this group that if getopt() does not work in
SafeD, then SafeD may as well pack and go home. I agree. We need to
make it work. Three ideas discussed with Walter:
If that's such an issue, why don't
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Any more thoughts, please let them known. Again, this is the ideal
time to contribute. But meh, it's a hack is difficult to discuss.
Well that's just like as if Bjarne Stroustrup would ask you: What would
you have done in my place? This looked like
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Yes, it will be because the book has a few failing unittests. In fact, I
was hoping I could talk you or David into doing it :o).
Andrei
Unfortunately, I've come to hate the MRU idea because it would
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Yes, it will be because the book has a few failing unittests. In fact, I
was hoping I could talk you or David into doing it
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
3. It was mentioned in this group that if getopt() does not work in
SafeD, then SafeD may as well pack and go home. I agree. We need to
make it work. Three ideas discussed with Walter:
If that's such an
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
opBinary does solve opIndex* morass because it only adds one function
per category, not one function per operator. For example:
struct T {
// op can be =, +=, -= etc.
E opAssign(string op)(E rhs) { ... }
// op can be =, +=, -= etc.
E
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
You mean use a struct for the string-value pair? A struct cannot have a
ref member, so it would still need to store a pointer. (But maybe I
misunderstood the point.)
Like this:
void main(string[] commandline) {
struct Args {
string param1 =
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Yes, it will be because the book has a few failing unittests. In fact, I
was hoping I could talk you or David
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:01:25 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
Yes, it will be because the book has a few failing
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
You mean use a struct for the string-value pair? A struct cannot have
a ref member, so it would still need to store a pointer. (But maybe I
misunderstood the point.)
Like this:
void main(string[] commandline) {
struct Args {
string
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:01:25 -0500, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
Yes, it will be because
Andrei Alexandrescu pisze:
We're entering the finale of D2 and I want to keep a short list of
things that must be done and integrated in the release. It is clearly
understood by all of us that there are many things that could and
probably should be done.
1. Currently Walter and Don are
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
