Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Johannes Pfau wrote: > I tried to do something similar some time ago, but I never finished it. Looks pretty nice also looks like a lot more work than I thought it would be!

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Andrei wrote: > Works? Yes, I like this a lot. The same technique can be used on any kind of list: $(TAGS sorting, searching) $(SEE_ALSO std.algorithm.sort, std.algorithm.indexOf, std.algorithm.canFind) Which expand to links inside a div for the macro or something so an xml processor can pull t

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Adam D. Ruppe wrote: >Andrei: >> Yah, agreed. I've done some work on that in the past; ideally each >> construct would generate a div/span with its own class and then >> everything would be controlled by CSSs. > >Yes, indeed. I'd like to go a little further than it goes now too, >specifically, I'd

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-07-03 00:00, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Andrei: Yah, agreed. I've done some work on that in the past; ideally each construct would generate a div/span with its own class and then everything would be controlled by CSSs. Yes, indeed. I'd like to go a little further than it goes now too, specif

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 7/2/2011 10:34 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Excellent idea. To complement it, we need a "text with commas" kind of thing so we don't need to insert $(COMMA) in longer list items: TXT = $0 $(LIST $(TXT stuff, with, commas), stuff without commas, $(TXT got, the, idea) ) Works? Yes, that w

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 3, 11 13:34, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 7/2/11 11:39 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 7:31 AM, Adam Ruppe wrote: Macros: TABLE=$0 TH=$1$(TH $+) HEADERS=$(TH $1, $+) TD=$1$(TD $+) ROW=$(TD $1, $+) Your idea also works for lists: $(UL $(LI item 1) $(LI item 2) ) now becomes:

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 7/2/11 11:39 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 7:31 AM, Adam Ruppe wrote: Macros: TABLE=$0 TH=$1$(TH $+) HEADERS=$(TH $1, $+) TD=$1$(TD $+) ROW=$(TD $1, $+) Your idea also works for lists: $(UL $(LI item 1) $(LI item 2) ) now becomes: $(LIST item 1, item 2 ) where: LI=$1$(LI $+)

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 7:31 AM, Adam Ruppe wrote: Macros: TABLE=$0 TH=$1$(TH $+) HEADERS=$(TH $1, $+) TD=$1$(TD $+) ROW=$(TD $1, $+) Your idea also works for lists: $(UL $(LI item 1) $

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-07-02 15:55:13 -0400, KennyTM~ said: On Jul 3, 11 03:33, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/29/11 9:09 AM, James Fisher wrote: A related thought here: are we aware of GitHub site hosting? AFAICT d-p-l.org doesn't use it, so I guess the repo is being pulled to another s

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 7/2/2011 3:35 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Sounds like a good idea for a pull request! Aye. I just wish my todo list was shorter! Mine has several thousand items on it!

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Walter Bright wrote: > Sounds like a good idea for a pull request! Aye. I just wish my todo list was shorter!

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 7/2/2011 3:00 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Shouldn't just output, it should be like: $(DDOC_GLOBAL_NAME module.name, MyStruct) $(DDOC_PSYMBOL myFunction)(); Sounds like a good idea for a pull request!

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Andrei: > Yah, agreed. I've done some work on that in the past; ideally each > construct would generate a div/span with its own class and then > everything would be controlled by CSSs. Yes, indeed. I'd like to go a little further than it goes now too, specifically, I'd like for any D identifiers -

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > If anything I'd add to that uniformity: I don't know, it seems ok the way it is. The sections aren't quite macros, though they are implemented that way (sections become DDOC_SECTION and DDOC_SECTION_H). I like the way they look though. It's a natural way to organize s

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/29/11 4:04 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote: Nick Sabalausky wrote: I'm firmly in the camp that HTML *is* presentation. The problem here is two things can look the same, but should be treated differently by post-processing programs. For example, lists of members. The presentational style code in std

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/29/11 2:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/29/2011 12:09 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote: One thing I like about ddoc is how hands-off it is. You can put almost any text inside it and it gets passed out unmolested. I think the only character that gets disappeared or altered in ddoc is $. The more spec

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 3, 11 03:33, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/29/11 9:09 AM, James Fisher wrote: A related thought here: are we aware of GitHub site hosting? AFAICT d-p-l.org doesn't use it, so I guess the repo is being pulled to another server? I think this has been cleared already -

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/29/11 1:33 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote: Dejan Lekic wrote: Conclusion: -- Get informed. To be fair, when someone is saying "you aren't very good at getting the word out in a consistent way", saying "get informed" is just shifting the blame right back. One thing I didn't think about about is

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/29/11 9:09 AM, James Fisher wrote: A related thought here: are we aware of GitHub site hosting? AFAICT d-p-l.org doesn't use it, so I guess the repo is being pulled to another server? I think this has been cleared already - the d-programming-language.org website is on

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/29/11 9:18 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: James Fisher wrote: I have no experience with DDOC, but TBH I don't intend to ever have any. The beauty of ddoc is you don't need experience with it. /** this is ddoc yes just this */ My biggest criticism of it is trivial to fix, but I

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

The Compose Key is fantastic. It's a tragedy it's not enabled by default. On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Mike Wey wrote: > On 06/30/2011 11:45 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: > >> Am 30.06.2011 23:41, schrieb simendsjo: >> >>> On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: >>> Jonathan M Davis: >>

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 06/30/2011 11:45 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:41, schrieb simendsjo: On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw strings in D. I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I use them only

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Robert Clipsham wrote: > On 29/06/2011 19:14, Walter Bright wrote: >> On 6/29/2011 4:03 AM, Adam Richardson wrote: >>> I'll admit that I looked through to see what I could help out with on >>> the website, but ddoc stopped me in my tracks. >> >> How did it stop you? > > DDoc vs Markdown: > * Pr

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 01.07.2011 11:33, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-07-01 02:29, simendsjo wrote: Looks ergonomically "correct", but pretty massive. I've considered TypeMatrix (http://typematrix.com/) in the past, but I think it's a bit expensive. I've never understood how keyboards with keys sitting almost ve

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-07-01 02:29, simendsjo wrote: Looks ergonomically "correct", but pretty massive. I've considered TypeMatrix (http://typematrix.com/) in the past, but I think it's a bit expensive. I've never understood how keyboards with keys sitting almost vertical can be ergonomically correct. It's l

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-07-01 02:19, Jonathan M Davis wrote: I switched to dvorak _and_ got one of these: http://www.kinesis- ergo.com/advantage.htm No one is going to be using my computer with my keyboard. Though honestly, as much as I like dvorak, I wouldn't advise that anyone switch to it. Too many programs

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-06-30 21:47, KennyTM~ wrote: On Jul 1, 11 03:27, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Walter Bright" wrote in message news:iuig3e$2m1k$1...@digitalmars.com... > Back ticks are used for D raw string literals, and I now think that was a mistake. What would you have used instead? There is r"..."

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-06-30 17:29, simendsjo wrote: > On 01.07.2011 02:19, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On 2011-06-30 15:59, simendsjo wrote: > >> On 01.07.2011 00:49, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: > >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:52:38 +0200, Daniel Gibson > >>> > >>> wrote: > Am 30.06.2011 23:50, schrieb KennyTM~: >

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

"Andrej Mitrovic" wrote in message news:mailman.1347.1309480430.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > For ultimate escaping use: > > auto str = q"EOS >W I'm a string ""``'q{\ > EOS"; > > Of course then you have to make sure 'EOS' is a unique name too. You > could use some funky unicode c

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

"simendsjo" wrote in message news:iuivd2$2sat$3...@digitalmars.com... > On 01.07.2011 00:49, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: >> >> And standard Norwegian layout has them on AltGr+8/9. The pain. >> But using US int'l has the added advantage of confusing the hell out >> of my cow-orkers when they try to use

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

I've heard Colemak is more programmer-oriented than Dvorak. But these are all "what works for you is the best" layouts. Personally my problems are never writing code, but localizing and browsing it. E.g. what's in this or that structure, field names, where it's defined, etc. IDE features basically

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

"KennyTM~" wrote in message news:iuirsg$b72$1...@digitalmars.com... > On Jul 1, 11 05:54, David Nadlinger wrote: >> On 6/30/11 11:52 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >>> On 6/30/2011 2:35 PM, bearophile wrote: I use it often, but it's buggy, you can't use it for "larger" programs. >>> >>> Bug report

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

"Walter Bright" wrote in message news:iuim2t$31ba$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 6/30/2011 12:22 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote: >> Being easy and simple is more important to me than being fancy. > > Exactly. Having every "would be nice if" feature can just sink a project > with it's dead weight. > > Back i

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

For ultimate escaping use: auto str = q"EOS W I'm a string ""``'q{\ EOS"; Of course then you have to make sure 'EOS' is a unique name too. You could use some funky unicode character sequence for that, just to be sure. :p

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 01.07.2011 02:19, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On 2011-06-30 15:59, simendsjo wrote: On 01.07.2011 00:49, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:52:38 +0200, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:50, schrieb KennyTM~: On Jul 1, 11 05:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually,

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

"KennyTM~" wrote in message news:iuik51$2t5s$2...@digitalmars.com... > On Jul 1, 11 03:27, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Walter Bright" wrote in message >> news:iuig3e$2m1k$1...@digitalmars.com... >> > >>> Back ticks are used for D raw string literals, and I now think that was >>> a >>> mistake.

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-06-30 15:59, simendsjo wrote: > On 01.07.2011 00:49, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:52:38 +0200, Daniel Gibson > > > > wrote: > >> Am 30.06.2011 23:50, schrieb KennyTM~: > >>> On Jul 1, 11 05:39, bearophile wrote: > Jonathan M Davis: > > Actually, I find the bac

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Doesn't OSX have something equivalent to AutoHotkey? Also, last I heard there was an AHK version for .NET, maybe OSX can use that via the Mono project. That might be a long shot though.

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 01.07.2011 00:49, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:52:38 +0200, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:50, schrieb KennyTM~: On Jul 1, 11 05:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw strings in D. I

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:52:38 +0200, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:50, schrieb KennyTM~: On Jul 1, 11 05:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw strings in D. I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 01.07.2011 00:28, schrieb David Nadlinger: > On 7/1/11 12:16 AM, bearophile wrote: >> Even keyboards that don't have [] as first keys, have them printed on >> the keys as alternative symbols, because they are Far more commonly >> needed than backticks. > > Unless you are using a QWERTZ mac keyb

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:36:13 +0200, Daniel Gibson wrote: Sadly, still nobody uses the profiler. Are you sure? I've used it several times. But maybe there should be an article on it or something. (On why it should be used and how this is done) Bring in the iPads! -- Simen

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 01.07.2011 00:18, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 01.07.2011 00:12, schrieb simendsjo: On 01.07.2011 00:03, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:58, schrieb simendsjo: On 30.06.2011 23:45, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:41, schrieb simendsjo: On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: Jonath

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 7/1/11 12:16 AM, bearophile wrote: Even keyboards that don't have [] as first keys, have them printed on the keys as alternative symbols, because they are Far more commonly needed than backticks. Unless you are using a QWERTZ mac keyboard. :) David

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Walter: > Bug reports? A bit later I have written: > I have never nailed down in what cases it doesn't work, sorry. It means I was not able to find test cases where the bugs come out. To me they come out only in larger programs. Bye, bearophile

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 01.07.2011 00:12, schrieb simendsjo: > On 01.07.2011 00:03, Daniel Gibson wrote: >> Am 30.06.2011 23:58, schrieb simendsjo: >>> On 30.06.2011 23:45, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:41, schrieb simendsjo: > On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: >> Jonathan M Davis: >>

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 01.07.2011 00:03, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:58, schrieb simendsjo: On 30.06.2011 23:45, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:41, schrieb simendsjo: On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to g

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

KennyTM~: > (I know some keyboard doesn't have '[' and ']'. So having no '`' > shouldn't be the reason it is removed from the language.) Even keyboards that don't have [] as first keys, have them printed on the keys as alternative symbols, because they are Far more commonly needed than backtic

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 30.06.2011 23:58, schrieb simendsjo: > On 30.06.2011 23:45, Daniel Gibson wrote: >> Am 30.06.2011 23:41, schrieb simendsjo: >>> On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: > Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to > get raw > string

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/11 11:59 PM, KennyTM~ wrote: On Jul 1, 11 05:54, David Nadlinger wrote: On 6/30/11 11:52 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 2:35 PM, bearophile wrote: I use it often, but it's buggy, you can't use it for "larger" programs. Bug reports? This obviously depends on the keyboard lay

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 30.06.2011 23:57, schrieb KennyTM~: > On Jul 1, 11 05:52, Daniel Gibson wrote: >> Am 30.06.2011 23:50, schrieb KennyTM~: >>> On Jul 1, 11 05:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: > Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to > get raw > strings in

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 1, 11 05:52, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:50, schrieb KennyTM~: On Jul 1, 11 05:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw strings in D. I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I use them only when t

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 30.06.2011 23:45, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 30.06.2011 23:41, schrieb simendsjo: On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw strings in D. I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I use them only whe

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 1, 11 05:54, David Nadlinger wrote: On 6/30/11 11:52 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 2:35 PM, bearophile wrote: I use it often, but it's buggy, you can't use it for "larger" programs. Bug reports? This obviously depends on the keyboard layout one is using… David That would

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 1, 11 05:35, bearophile wrote: Walter: I base that on if people were using it, there'd be lots of bug reports and enhancement requests! I have not needed enhancement requests for the profiler. But I'd like a statistical one added. Does anyone use it's companion, -cov? I use it of

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/11 11:52 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 2:35 PM, bearophile wrote: I use it often, but it's buggy, you can't use it for "larger" programs. Bug reports? This obviously depends on the keyboard layout one is using… David

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 30.06.2011 23:51, schrieb Walter Bright: > On 6/30/2011 2:39 PM, bearophile wrote: >> I don't have backticks on my keyboard, > > I got a keyboard from the thrift shop for a buck. It has `. Probably his keyboard doesn't have US layout ;)

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 2:35 PM, bearophile wrote: I use it often, but it's buggy, you can't use it for "larger" programs. Bug reports?

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 30.06.2011 23:50, schrieb KennyTM~: > On Jul 1, 11 05:39, bearophile wrote: >> Jonathan M Davis: >> >>> Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to >>> get raw >>> strings in D. >> >> I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I use them only when they >> are needed. They

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 2:04 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw strings in D. I don't particularly like the other syntaxes for it (particularly q{}). It may be that other considerations make it so that it would have been better not to use

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 2:39 PM, bearophile wrote: I don't have backticks on my keyboard, I got a keyboard from the thrift shop for a buck. It has `.

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 1, 11 05:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw strings in D. I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I use them only when they are needed. They have even removed the backticks in the Python2 -> Python3 t

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 30.06.2011 23:41, schrieb simendsjo: > On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: >> Jonathan M Davis: >> >>> Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to >>> get raw >>> strings in D. >> >> I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I use them only when they >> are needed. Th

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 30.06.2011 23:39, bearophile wrote: Jonathan M Davis: Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw strings in D. I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I use them only when they are needed. They have even removed the backticks in the Python2 -> Python3

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Jonathan M Davis: > Actually, I find the backticks to be by far the most pleasant way to get raw > strings in D. I don't have backticks on my keyboard, so I use them only when they are needed. They have even removed the backticks in the Python2 -> Python3 transition partially because of this (

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Walter: > I base that on if people were using it, there'd be lots of bug reports and > enhancement requests! I have not needed enhancement requests for the profiler. But I'd like a statistical one added. > Does anyone use it's companion, -cov? I use it often, but it's buggy, you can't use it

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 30.06.2011 22:47, schrieb Walter Bright: > On 6/30/2011 1:36 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: >> Are you sure? I've used it several times. > > I base that on if people were using it, there'd be lots of bug reports > and enhancement requests! Which reminds me - IIRC there were issues with multi threade

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-06-30 13:12, Walter Bright wrote: > On 6/30/2011 12:27 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > "Walter Bright" wrote in message > > news:iuig3e$2m1k$1...@digitalmars.com... > > > >> Back ticks are used for D raw string literals, and I now think that was > >> a mistake. > > > > What would you have

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 1:36 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: Are you sure? I've used it several times. I base that on if people were using it, there'd be lots of bug reports and enhancement requests! Does anyone use it's companion, -cov?

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Am 30.06.2011 22:20, schrieb Walter Bright: > On 6/30/2011 12:22 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote: >> Being easy and simple is more important to me than being fancy. > > Exactly. Having every "would be nice if" feature can just sink a project > with it's dead weight. > > Back in the 80's, the company I worke

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 1, 11 04:34, Timon Gehr wrote: Adam Ruppe wrote: Walter Bright wrote: D has other methods for raw literals, so the ` are not only ugly, they're redundant. The best part about `` literals is you can put " inside them. You can do that with q{} too, but then the {} needs to match up whic

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 1:27 PM, eles wrote: Reminds me of a Bjarne Stroustrup comment when he joked that decades ago, he imagined that it would be great if using a computer were as simple as using a phone. He said that dream came true :-) "I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Walter: > Sadly, still nobody uses the profiler. I'm using it all the time! I'd even like a statistical profile to be added as second profiler to the standard distribution (there is one, around, for D). Bye, bearophile

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Adam Ruppe wrote: > Walter Bright wrote: >> D has other methods for raw literals, so the ` are not only ugly, >> they're redundant. > > The best part about `` literals is you can put " inside them. > > You can do that with q{} too, but then the {} needs to match up > which is a bit of a hassle at t

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

> Reminds me of a Bjarne Stroustrup comment when he joked that decades ago, he > imagined that it would be great if using a computer were as simple as using a > phone. He said that dream came true :-) "I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 12:22 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote: Being easy and simple is more important to me than being fancy. Exactly. Having every "would be nice if" feature can just sink a project with it's dead weight. Back in the 80's, the company I worked for bought a profiling tool for C. Nobody ever used

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Walter Bright wrote: > D has other methods for raw literals, so the ` are not only ugly, > they're redundant. The best part about `` literals is you can put " inside them. You can do that with q{} too, but then the {} needs to match up which is a bit of a hassle at times.

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 12:27 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Walter Bright" wrote in message news:iuig3e$2m1k$1...@digitalmars.com... > Back ticks are used for D raw string literals, and I now think that was a mistake. What would you have used instead? D has other methods for raw literals, so the ` ar

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 1, 11 03:10, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 6:28 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: No, you don't have to. I'll often write it as: $(CHAPTER foo, bar) The 'foo' is still here. By natural I mean once you have a 'bar', you often don't need to care about the 'foo'. Right, I agreed that Sphinx does

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 1, 11 03:27, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Walter Bright" wrote in message news:iuig3e$2m1k$1...@digitalmars.com... > Back ticks are used for D raw string literals, and I now think that was a mistake. What would you have used instead? There is r"..." which is equivalent to `...`. I've

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

"Walter Bright" wrote in message news:iuig3e$2m1k$1...@digitalmars.com... > > Back ticks are used for D raw string literals, and I now think that was a > mistake. > What would you have used instead?

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

> Andrei surprised me by using javascript to fill that role, and > perhaps that is good enough. Or you can use D too - I made a little post-processor that parses and modifies the html to add fancier things, when needed for me. This is why I've made a few comments on making the std.ddoc macros mor

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 6:28 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: No, you don't have to. I'll often write it as: $(CHAPTER foo, bar) The 'foo' is still here. By natural I mean once you have a 'bar', you often don't need to care about the 'foo'. Right, I agreed that Sphinx does better with that detail. Also, in d-prog

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jul 1, 11 02:48, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 7:50 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: Interesting trick! Thanks. Indeed the default DDoc macros are not very good, e.g. having no inline code format ($(D x) in Phobos), and relying on the presentational aspect of HTML (e.g. DDOC_BUGS = $(RED BUGS:)$(BR)$0

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 7:31 AM, Adam Ruppe wrote: If we take advantage of recursive template expansion I worked pretty hard on getting recursion right on the templates. There are a number of subtleties on it; I had the advantage of doing macro systems before and know how to do it. You can use it

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 7:50 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: Interesting trick! Thanks. Indeed the default DDoc macros are not very good, e.g. having no inline code format ($(D x) in Phobos), and relying on the presentational aspect of HTML (e.g. DDOC_BUGS = $(RED BUGS:)$(BR)$0$(BR)$(BR)), etc. I wanted the default m

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

BTW, probably the biggest shortcoming of Ddoc is that its template system does not have conditional or looping constructs. It is not a complete programming language. Such could be added, but there has been no particular need for it. Andrei surprised me by using javascript to fill that role, and

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 7:05 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: Right. I agree this is one disadvantage in authoring the document. Although, in terms of readability, this is much better than $(TABLE $(TR $(TH Header) $(TH Header2) ) $(TR $(TD Body1) ... ) ... ) I've actually been using different macros for that now, an

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jun 30, 11 22:31, Adam Ruppe wrote: KennyTM~ wrote: Right. I agree this is one disadvantage in authoring the document. Although, in terms of readability, this is much better than $(TABLE $(TR $(TH Header) $(TH Header2) Note that textual macros can do a *lot* better than this. If we ta

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

KennyTM~ wrote: > Right. I agree this is one disadvantage in authoring the document. > Although, in terms of readability, this is much better than > > $(TABLE > $(TR > $(TH Header) > $(TH Header2) Note that textual macros can do a *lot* better than this. If we take advantage of recursive templa

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jun 30, 11 18:50, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 1:26 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: Yes it is supported by Sphinx with the :ref:`target` syntax. Take a look at this: http://sphinx.pocoo.org/rest.html#tables +++--+--+ | Header row, column 1 | He

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jun 30, 11 18:25, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2011 1:26 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: Right, it's possible, but it is ugly. Isn't the point to show the syntax "easier, nicer, and more productive"? Ddoc has pretty much only one syntax. Sphinx seems to have a lot of them. OK, if that's a concern.

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Walter Bright wrote: > In Ddoc, you can define your own macros to do that, for example: > H3=$0 So, I was just writing up a complaint about ddoc's escaping of characters when I looked at doc.c and found it already had a solution... except looking at the code, it doesn't seem to be fully imple

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

Walter: > If Sphinx was the industry standard that everyone > uses, that might make it compelling in spite of its problems. But it isn't, > I'd > never heard of it before your links. (Of course, that might just mean I'm > living > under a rock!) Sphinx is kind of new, but it's used for Pytho

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 1:26 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: Yes it is supported by Sphinx with the :ref:`target` syntax. Take a look at this: http://sphinx.pocoo.org/rest.html#tables +++--+--+ | Header row, column 1 | Header 2 | Header 3 | Header 4 | | (heade

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 6/30/2011 1:26 AM, KennyTM~ wrote: Right, it's possible, but it is ugly. Isn't the point to show the syntax "easier, nicer, and more productive"? Ddoc has pretty much only one syntax. Sphinx seems to have a lot of them. What if the link points to another file? And what if sometimes you wa

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On 2011-06-30 10:13, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message news:iuh6jn$3df$2...@digitalmars.com... On 2011-06-29 22:16, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Adam Richardson" wrote in message news:mailman.1291.1309377741.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:48

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jun 30, 11 13:20, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/29/2011 8:35 PM, Ary Manzana wrote: On 6/30/11 1:00 AM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/29/2011 4:25 AM, Walter Bright wrote: Ddoc is: 7. We don't get left in the lurch if said third party quits. 8. Ddoc understands the semantics of D code. Third par

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

"Walter Bright" wrote in message news:iufs0j$pnj$1...@digitalmars.com... > > And, in general, I think a programming language web site should be fairly > straightforward. I don't think having it look like a Coca Cola web site is > appropriate for the audience. It should be easy to navigate, easy

Re: Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

On Jun 30, 11 11:57, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/29/2011 3:56 PM, KennyTM~ wrote: The easier, nicer, and more productive part: - Native support of sectioning and anchors instead of sprinkling with and 's. In Ddoc, you can define your own macros to do that, for example: H3=$0 and then: $(H3 T

  1   2   >