On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 14:08:30 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 09/24/2016 04:03 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
[...]
Yea, incidentally, I just started using unit-threaded for the
first time this week, and so far, for the most part, I really
quite like it a lot. But those comparator
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 08:03:15 UTC, Martin Nowak
wrote:
On Friday, 23 September 2016 at 20:57:49 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
were rejected because it was deemed both easy enough and
preferable to get these features by modifying DMD to add
behind-the-scenes AST magic to "assert".
On 2016-09-24 15:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
+1.
Although I haven't given it too much thought, I'd bet that could also be
used to provide, in library, my #1 most wanted missing D feature: Input
ranges (maybe even forward, too) written as stackless coroutines
(C#-style, heck, even C can do it in
On 09/24/2016 04:03 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
assertPred!"=="(a, b);
assertPred!"!"(a);
assertPred!(std.range.equal)(a, b);
Seems to do most of what DIP83 does w/ expensive feature design, and
compiler implementation work.
Also http://code.dlang.org/packages/unit-threaded comes with a couple of
On 09/24/2016 03:34 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2016 23:50:03 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
And then that leads too, to the question of whether such third-party
asserts are a good idea for the doc unittests I like so much... :/
I'd say
On 09/24/2016 06:52 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-09-24 00:02, Seb wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP83
(needs polishing and submission to the new dip process)
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP50 :)
+1.
Although I haven't given it too much thought, I'd bet that could also be
used to provide,
On 2016-09-24 00:02, Seb wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP83
(needs polishing and submission to the new dip process)
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP50 :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 08:03:15 Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 23 September 2016 at 20:57:49 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
>
> wrote:
> > were rejected because it was deemed both easy enough and
> > preferable to get these features by modifying DMD to add
> > behind-the-scenes
On Friday, 23 September 2016 at 20:57:49 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
were rejected because it was deemed both easy enough and
preferable to get these features by modifying DMD to add
behind-the-scenes AST magic to "assert".
So...umm...yea...whatever happened to that beefed-up "assert"
On Friday, September 23, 2016 23:50:03 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 11:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On 09/23/2016 07:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 23, 2016 16:57:49 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
> >>
> >> wrote:
>
On 09/23/2016 11:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 09/23/2016 07:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2016 16:57:49 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
So...umm...yea...whatever happened to that beefed-up "assert" feature?
[...]
Ugh, so, "It was
On 09/23/2016 07:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2016 16:57:49 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
So...umm...yea...whatever happened to that beefed-up "assert" feature?
[...]
Ugh, so, "It was rejected for being library instead of assert,
On Friday, September 23, 2016 16:57:49 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> Some ages ago, a whole suite of "assertPred" functions were written
> (giving better diagnostic info, like showing "expected vs actual"), were
> totally awesome, were submitted to phobos...and were rejected because
On Friday, 23 September 2016 at 20:57:49 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
Some ages ago, a whole suite of "assertPred" functions were
written (giving better diagnostic info, like showing "expected
vs actual"), were totally awesome, were submitted to
phobos...and were rejected because it was deemed
Some ages ago, a whole suite of "assertPred" functions were written
(giving better diagnostic info, like showing "expected vs actual"), were
totally awesome, were submitted to phobos...and were rejected because it
was deemed both easy enough and preferable to get these features by
modifying
15 matches
Mail list logo
