Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
rmcguire wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:05:27 +0300, rmcguire rjmcgu...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:08:06 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I wanted to use auto, but ddoc cannot document functions with auto returns.
Andrei
When I need to hack around an 'auto' bug, I sometimes factor out the
return type to a template:
template IotaRet(B,
Max Samukha wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:08:06 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I wanted to use auto, but ddoc cannot document functions with auto returns.
Andrei
When I need to hack around an 'auto' bug, I sometimes factor out the
return type to a template:
bearophile wrote:
Pelle Månsson:
Personally, I like this:
foreach (i; 0..10) list ~= i;
more. :)
While I like this more:
for (i in 0 .. 10)
list ~= i;
Bye,
bearophile
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
Okay, that's not really fair. The direct port to Scala would be more
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable syntax. Python
has taught me how much useful a readable syntax is :-)
Designing languages requires to find a balance between several different and
opposed
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
syntax. Python has taught me how much useful a readable syntax is :-)
Designing languages
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
syntax. Python has taught me how much useful a readable syntax is
Yigal Chripun:
Ranges are already part of the compiler because of foreach, can we also
add language support for Range literals?
In both iota and other possible implementations I'd like the arguments used by
Python range/xrange, they are optimal, and better than the currently ones used
by
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:16:29 +0200, Pelle M?nsson
pelle.mans...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
syntax. Python has taught me how much useful
Bill Baxter, el 23 de octubre a las 08:51 me escribiste:
list ~= array(iota(0, 10));
While we're not on the subject
Iota is right up there with inSitu.
I know it has a precedent elsewhere, but it sounds about as user
friendly as monads. It just sounds like the language it trying to be
On 23/10/2009 18:29, bearophile wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
Ranges are already part of the compiler because of foreach, can we
also add language support for Range literals?
In both iota and other possible implementations I'd like the
arguments used by Python range/xrange, they are optimal, and
Yigal Chripun:
Hell no. This is why I hate certain programming languages.
if you are trying to obfuscate the language than why not just define:
rtqfrdsg and fdkjtkf as the function names?
Don't be silly. In my dlibs xsomething are the lazy functions, and
something are the strict ones. That's
bearophile wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
Hell no. This is why I hate certain programming languages.
if you are trying to obfuscate the language than why not just define:
rtqfrdsg and fdkjtkf as the function names?
Don't be silly. In my dlibs xsomething are the lazy functions, and
something are the
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:50:34 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
What does iota mean?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_range.html#iota
Irony minded. I'm destroyed.
Hm... this is slightly off topic, but that function signature is
absolutely
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:50:34 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
What does iota mean?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_range.html#iota
Irony minded. I'm destroyed.
Hm... this is slightly off topic, but that function
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has
Pelle Månsson wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
Hell no. This is why I hate certain programming languages.
if you are trying to obfuscate the language than why not just define:
rtqfrdsg and fdkjtkf as the function names?
Don't be silly. In my dlibs xsomething are the lazy functions,
On 23/10/2009 19:49, Pelle Månsson wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
Hell no. This is why I hate certain programming languages.
if you are trying to obfuscate the language than why not just define:
rtqfrdsg and fdkjtkf as the function names?
Don't be silly. In my dlibs xsomething are
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 18:29, bearophile wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
Ranges are already part of the compiler because of foreach, can we
also add language support for Range literals?
In both iota and other possible implementations I'd like the
arguments used by Python range/xrange,
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
syntax. Python has taught me how much useful
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 23 de octubre a las 11:09 me escribiste:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 23 de octubre a las 11:09 me escribiste:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list =
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:50:34 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
What does iota mean?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_range.html#iota
Irony minded. I'm destroyed.
Hm... this is slightly off
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:50:34 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
What does iota mean?
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
syntax. Python
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
syntax. Python
grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)
That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable
bearophile wrote:
Tim Matthews:
OOC. I quite like how this one myself personally. http://ooc-lang.org/about
Type of arguments can be stated once:
Vector3f: class {
x, y, z : Float
init: func(x, y, z : Float) {
this x = x // 'this' is called 'self' in some other languages
this y
Pelle Månsson:
Personally, I like this:
foreach (i; 0..10) list ~= i;
more. :)
While I like this more:
for (i in 0 .. 10)
list ~= i;
Bye,
bearophile
While C may be not much from assembly and C++ a mess. C with a strapped
on GC can have full power, portability which just leaves the programmer
to please.
Some of spotted this and instead of compiling directly, they output C
code. Some examples of this are:
Bitc. Combines the flexibility,
34 matches
Mail list logo