Hi all,
I think D has a lot to offer technical computing:
- the speed and modeling power of C++
- GC for clean API design
- reflection for automatic bindings
And technical computing has a lot to offer D:
- users
- API writers
- time in the minds of people who teach
Multidimensional
Mason McGill:
My concern is that this design may be ignoring some of the
lessons the SciPy community has learned over the past 10+ years.
Thank you for your help. An injection of experience is quite
important here. Julia is far newer than D, and yet it has already
a better design and more
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:29:34PM +, bearophile wrote:
Mason McGill:
My concern is that this design may be ignoring some of the lessons
the SciPy community has learned over the past 10+ years.
Thank you for your help. An injection of experience is quite
important here. Julia is far
// So why shouldn't this work?
auto range = 0..10;
foreach (i; range) doScience(i);
Replace the first line with:
auto range = iota(0, 10);
and it will work. It's not *that* hard to learn, is it?
True, but I think the issue at hand when discussing sugary
syntax is clarity and
2014-03-08 10:24 GMT+09:00 Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
I agree and sympathize.
I finished to update my pull request #443. Now it is active.
Kenji Hara
So are there any significant objections to Kenji's PR?
I think it's got a lot of things going for it, particularly in
finishing the job begun by DIP#7 and opDollar. I realize it's not
likely be a top priority for most people, but it's got a lot of
bang for your buck: a great benefit to an
I would like to revisit the topic of operator overloads for
multidimensional slicing.
Bottom line: opSlice is currently limited to 1 dimension/axis
only. The cleanest workaround right now is to pass your own
slice structs to opIndex. It works but it's not too pretty.
// Suppose we have
Jared Miller:
Looking forward to discussion.
D needs to offer a nice syntax for user defined multidimensional
slicing.
Bye,
bearophile
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:23:30PM +, bearophile wrote:
Jared Miller:
Looking forward to discussion.
D needs to offer a nice syntax for user defined multidimensional
slicing.
[...]
+1. I fully support Kenji's pull to extend the language in that
direction.
I'm a bit sad that Walter
On 3/7/14, 2:30 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:23:30PM +, bearophile wrote:
Jared Miller:
Looking forward to discussion.
D needs to offer a nice syntax for user defined multidimensional
slicing.
[...]
+1. I fully support Kenji's pull to extend the language in that
On 3/7/2014 2:30 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I'm a bit sad that Walter is pushing for a large breaking change to D
string handling, while Kenji's pull, which is a non-breaking enhancement
that would lead to much better D support for many numerical computation
applications, has been stagnating for at
11 matches
Mail list logo
