Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.vqm05qx8eav7ka@steve-laptop...
*playing* in the snow is way different than *battling* the snow :)
Not to me ;) (It's freeze your nuts off either way.)
*Sigh* I was hoping for a clearer vote than this.
assertThrown, assertNotThrown, and collectExceptionMsg are clearly in, but the
vote on assertPred is not so clear.
No
---
Brad Roberts (I appeared to be against but didn't vote outright)
David Nadlinger
Don
Jim? (I _think_ that he was voting
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 03:52:30 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
*Sigh* I was hoping for a clearer vote than this.
assertThrown, assertNotThrown, and collectExceptionMsg are clearly in,
but the vote on assertPred is not so clear.
No
---
Brad Roberts (I appeared to be against but didn't vote
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 06:52:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
*Sigh* I was hoping for a clearer vote than this.
Sorry for the lack of voting/attention, I've had barely any time to work
with D lately, and I haven't even looked at your lib.
-Steve
P.S. I'm f***ing sick
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.vqk74auaeav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 06:52:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
*Sigh* I was hoping for a clearer vote than this.
Sorry for the lack of voting/attention, I've had barely any
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:36:14 -0500, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.vqk74auaeav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 06:52:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
*Sigh* I was hoping for a clearer vote than
On 2/8/11 3:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:36:14 -0500, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.vqk74auaeav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 06:52:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On 02/09/2011 01:38 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/8/11 3:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:36:14 -0500, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.vqk74auaeav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 06:52:30
There are a number of people who have responded positively to my unit test
functions - including assertPred - as it has moved through the review process.
Please reiterate that positive vote here (or negative if you're so inclined).
The deadline for votes is today.
As it stands, I believe that
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1363.1297067437.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
There are a number of people who have responded positively to my unit test
functions - including assertPred - as it has moved through the review
process.
Please reiterate
On 02/07/2011 09:30 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
There are a number of people who have responded positively to my unit test
functions - including assertPred - as it has moved through the review process.
Please reiterate that positive vote here (or negative if you're so inclined).
The deadline for
Not that I have a say in this matter, but although I think the code is
excellent in technical merits, is not a central part of the problem it aims to
mend actually an insufficiency in druntime?
I'd rather see the regular, language provided assert() fulfilling the needs as
the assertion
On Monday 07 February 2011 03:36:33 Jim wrote:
Not that I have a say in this matter, but although I think the code is
excellent in technical merits, is not a central part of the problem it
aims to mend actually an insufficiency in druntime?
I'd rather see the regular, language provided
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.comwrote:
There are a number of people who have responded positively to my unit test
functions - including assertPred - as it has moved through the review
process.
Please reiterate that positive vote here (or negative if you're
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay, the latest code and documentation is here: http://is.gd/HZQwNz
I've also made the changes in my github fork of Phobos here:
https://github.com/jmdavis/phobos . So, if this passes the vote, it's just a
pull request away from being in Phobos.
assertPred,
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay, the latest code and documentation is here: http://is.gd/HZQwNz
I've also made the changes in my github fork of Phobos here:
https://github.com/jmdavis/phobos . So, if this passes the vote, it's just a
pull request away from being in Phobos.
assertPred,
On 2/4/11 4:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, please make any last comments or suggestions on this proposal, and vote on
whether you think that assertPred should be in Phobos (assuming that assert
isn't going to be improved such that assertPred isn't necessary) and whether you
think that
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1276.1296831944.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
So, please make any last comments or suggestions on this proposal, and
vote on
whether you think that assertPred should be in Phobos (assuming that
assert
isn't going to
Okay, the latest code and documentation is here: http://is.gd/HZQwNz
I've also made the changes in my github fork of Phobos here:
https://github.com/jmdavis/phobos . So, if this passes the vote, it's just a
pull request away from being in Phobos.
assertPred, assertThrown, assertNotThrown, and
19 matches
Mail list logo
